MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091886217 · doi:10.1007/s10539-005-5589-1

How to Understand Casual Relations in Natural Selection: Reply to Rosenberg and Bouchard

2005· article· en· W2091886217 on OpenAlexaff
Mohan Matthen, André Ariew

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology & Philosophy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualPhilosophy of biologyNatural selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Natural (archaeology)EpistemologySociologyPhilosophyBiologyPhilosophy of scienceComputer sciencePaleontologyArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.024
Scholarly communication0.0060.023
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0270.056
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBiology & PhilosophySame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207