Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses the general philosophy of science (GPoS) and its significance to the philosophies of various sciences. It is argued that there can be no philosophies of the various sciences without GPoS. However, there is osmosis between GPoS and the philosophies of the individual sciences, which is grounded on two important functions GPoS plays vis-à-vis Science-in-general: an explicative function and a critical function. The chapter first considers debates about the nature of science, particularly how it differs from nonscience or pseudoscience and the issue of what counts as “scientific,” then examines how scientific theories are related to evidence and how theory-appraisal and theory-choice work as a central concern of GPoS. It also describes four dimensions along which the explicative and critical functions of GPoS operate: the epistemic, metaphysical, conceptual, and practical dimensions. Finally, the article turns to the philosophy of X and how it relates to GPoS.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".