MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148809725 · doi:10.1162/106361403322286689

The Contexts of Philosophy of Science

2003· article· en· W2148809725 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Richardson, Don Howard

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconCitationSearch engine optimizationDownloadComputer scienceLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalSearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

March 01 2003 The Contexts of Philosophy of Science Alan Richardson, Alan Richardson University of British Columbia Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Don Howard Don Howard University of Notre Dame Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Author and Article Information Alan Richardson University of British Columbia Don Howard University of Notre Dame Online Issn: 1530-9274 Print Issn: 1063-6145 © 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology2003 Perspectives on Science (2003) 11 (1): 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1162/106361403322286689 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share MailTo Twitter LinkedIn Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Alan Richardson, Don Howard; The Contexts of Philosophy of Science. Perspectives on Science 2003; 11 (1): 1–2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/106361403322286689 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsPerspectives on Science Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology2003 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.015
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Science and technology studies

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on ScienceSame topicEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsCategoryScience and technology studiesFrench-language works237,207