MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166697066 · doi:10.1093/analys/anq039

Science without Representation

2010· article· en· W2166697066 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalysis · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaGovernment of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Computer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

describe them. Truth is more fundamental than representation. It is only because we are in the first place able to make true judgements about hot and cold bodies, the motions of planets and the geometrical forms of objects, as well as about the behaviour of measuring devices, that we can (truly) assert that the temperature of a body is 37.38C, that Mars revolves around the sun in 687 days and that the rectangular table-top of my desk is 113 cm 187 cm. The indexicality of our scientific representations is not a threat to the truth of statements that describe the facts on which their success relies. In a predicative statement, we may (indeed, we must) abstract some characteristics of the described phenomenon, but this does not prevent it from really possessing some properties, a fact which can also be ascertained by other observers. At the end of the day, true statements grounded on facts attested by observation provide the inescapable basis for the success of our scientific representations.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.017
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.429 · 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