Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the philosophers of science Hempel and Oppenheim (1948), who were cited appropriately by Lilienfeld (see record 2011-12007-001) in his article, scientific explanations serve to answer "why" questions. Clarifying the logic of explanations in the sciences, they developed famously the notion that phenomena can be explained (using deduction) by means of general laws and by means of certain antecedent conditions. What is evident from all we know from the philosophy of science is that Lilienfeld offered us an interpretation. Although Lilienfeld provided good arguments and good reasons for the explanandum (e.g., why the public is skeptical toward psychology), citing studies and data, he clearly did not provide a deductive-nomological explanation in the sense of Hempel and Oppenheim or in the sense of the natural sciences.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.062 | 0.083 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
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".