MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The One and the Many: Reading Isaiah Berlin - George Crowder and Henry Hardy

2008· article· en· W2060574362 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charles Blattberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Philosophical Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThomas Hardy Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorge (robot)Reading (process)ClassicsPhilosophyHistoryArtArt historyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Journal Article The One and the Many: Reading Isaiah Berlin – George Crowder and Henry Hardy Get access The One and the Many: Reading Isaiah Berlin. George Crowder and Henry Hardy(eds), (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2007. Pp. 335. Price $28.00.) Charles Blattberg Charles Blattberg Université de Montréal Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 58, Issue 233, October 2008, Pages 753–755, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2008.581_6.x Published: 16 September 2008

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Philosophical QuarterlySame topicThomas Hardy Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207