MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2270384409 · doi:10.1007/1-4020-2182-8_14

Empiricism: Principles and Problems

2006· book-chapter· en· W2270384409 on OpenAlexaff
Fred Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueKluwer Academic Publishers eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhilosophy and Theoretical Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpiricismEpistemologyMetaphysicsSimple (philosophy)PhilosophyOntologyPoint (geometry)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empiricism is defined by its basic principle, the Principle of Acquaintance (PA), which asserts that no entity is to be admitted into one’s ontology unless one is acquainted with that entity in ordinary awareness of the world, either sensory awareness or inner awareness of our own conscious states. As William James once put it, this metaphysical first principle states that “everything real must be experienceable somewhere, and every kind of thing experienced must somewhere be real.” James was merely restating what others had earlier stated. David Hume was making essentially the same point when he insisted that all our ideas derive from impressions. As he argues, “...all our simple ideas in their first appearance, are derived from simple impressions, which are correspondent to them, and which they exactly represent.” When Hume says that all our ideas derive from impressions, what he is maintaining is that there is no kind of thought, no form of cognition, which gives us access as it were to a world that is somehow beyond the world given to us in sense experience. All our ideas or concepts

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.052
Scholarly communication0.0120.019
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0080.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKluwer Academic Publishers eBooksSame topicPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFrench-language works237,207