Bibliographic record
Abstract
The different forms of duality in Robert Ulanowicz’s (2009) book A Third Window are compared to the notion of neo-duality found in Logan and Schumann (2005). The influence of Heraclitus on the formulation Ulanowicz’ duality is described. It is argued that the origin of language, which led to conceptualization and emotional intelligence, also gave rise to human spirituality, cooperation and altruism all of which contributed to human survival. The four mysteries of the existence of 1) matter/energy, 2) life, 3) human intelligence, and 4) human spirituality are identified. It is suggested that physics and chemistry deal with mystery number one; that Ulanowicz’s process ecology describes mystery number two and the relation of life to energy/matter. Mystery number three entails process ecology and consideration of the effects of language. The emergence of the fourth mystery of spirituality and/or a belief in God is shown to have emerged from two uniquely human attributes, namely the abstract form of language-based intelligence and altruism. It is suggested rather than as an agent that influences events in the universe God, an idea that arises in the minds of humankind as a metaphor of all that is good in humankind.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".