On Preserving: Essays on Preservationism and Paraconsistent Logic * Edited By PETER SCHOTCH, BRYSON BROWN AND RAYMOND JENNINGS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On Preserving sets out in a very readable style a new approach to paraconsistency, which has been recently proselytized and researched by a group of Canadians, creating a national viewpoint called ‘preservationism’. It consists of a series of essays, written and rewritten for this purpose, bringing related ideas together in one place. The key people involved are the editors, together with Alasdair Urquhart and the Canadian doctoral students, Gillman Payette, Dorian Nicholson and Kam Sing Leung. The book is essential reading for anyone interested in paraconsistency, but it is also very worthwhile for philosophical logicians who might be interested in a new logical structure that can overcome the problems of contradiction. Their approach to paraconsistency is closest to that of the Polish-European non-adjunctive logicians and would also appeal to those who wish to maintain classical logic as much as one is able, while still dealing with the problem of logical triviality caused by the classical rule, Ex Falso Quodlibet (A, ∼A ⇒ B).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".