MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Explanation of Integral Thinking From the Contemporary Perspective of System

2013· article· en· W2126008714 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jian Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCognitive Science and Education Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialecticScope (computer science)MaterialismEpistemologyParallel thinkingMechanism (biology)Perspective (graphical)Set (abstract data type)Vertical thinkingSociologyCognitionCognitive scienceCritical systems thinkingPsychologyCritical thinkingPhilosophyComputer scienceSocial psychologyConvergent thinkingCreative thinkingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a kind of thinking mechanism that grasps motion, change and development of objects on the whole, it has widely divergent content in development of human history and in practice of the times. When materialistic dialectics and contemporary scientific research go towards integration, integral thinking at a scientific level begins to have its embryonic form. Integral thinking contains a whole set of thinking principles, methods and operation procedures, plays the functions of guiding, selecting, evaluating and defending in scientific cognition and expands its “sphere of influence” in a wider scope.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicCognitive Science and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207