MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2216861564

Response to the Commentary of Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

2010· article· en· W2216861564 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory M. Nixon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of consciousness exploration & research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval and Classical Philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)Object (grammar)ConsciousnessAsidePsychePsychologyEpistemologyPhilosophyLinguisticsCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Right off the bat, I’d like to state that I am strongly attracted to Vimal’s definition of consciousness, as elucidated in the abstract . I might quibble and ask for the word psyche instead of mind , which he uses, and I might suggest that for common useage the definition could be even more simplified, but really it stands as is. However, he does not mention conscious transcendence (or, better, transcendent awareness ). Aside from this oversight (which is probably implied since Vimal has written elsewhere of higher states of consciousness), it is the most comprehensive definition I have seen stated in the fewest possible words. However, in the series of unspecified quotations he attributes to me, I see, “Experience is divided into subject and object.” Now I don’t believe that experience-in-itself, raw experience , is divided into subject and object, so I can’t conceive of me saying this except to explain how experience becomes conscious experience, which is precisely by sundering object from subject through linguistic syntax. If, for experience-in-itself, subject and object are one, then it follows that non-conscious functions and nonconscious experiences may also be identical. However, I might add that much nonconscious experiencing could in principle become conscious experiencing under the right circumstances with the right sort of symbols and cognitive tools. Non-conscious functions, on the other hand, might be expected to stay non-conscious since are often only the physical substrate for more subtle mental processes. I really appeciate Vimal’s carefully thought-out tables and charts. For many, they will clarify the subject of this discussion. I like to keep things simple, however, if only for the reason that trying to get others to give some consideration to this a new (yet ancient) way of thinking about consciousness means avoiding the complexity that will scare them away. This is certainly not to say Vimal is wrong; on the contrary, it is to praise him for going beyond what I have attempted. By making the picture more complex he is also clarifying it.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0350.075
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.009

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of consciousness exploration & researchSame topicMedieval and Classical PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207