Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a personal report of my effort to keep a sense of perspective in the light of my experience with the philosophy of Sir Karl Popper.My experience impressed me greatly, and as usual in such cases, it was important for me to compare my experiences with those of others.The variance was, and still is, disconcerting.The need for comparing notes was mentioned a few times by Popper himself, and so my failure in this respect got worse.Later on I found out that the variance between one's experience and the reports of others regarding the same experience can be shocking.This is shown in so-called Ash-type experiments, in which people simply cannot take the variance and fear that they are going mad.This did not happen to me.I found Popper wonderful -I still do -and most of my peers did not report the same experience.I do not know to what extent I share Popper's philosophy.I do not even know what exactly his philosophy is, though I have some ideas about it that may be near enough to the truth.At least, I hope that I do not distort his ideas too much.But as I think that some of his ardent disciples do distort his ideas, I cannot take an oath that I do not.Let me remind you, at least, that no two people share exactly the same philosophy.Not even Marx and Engels.What impressed me so much about Popper was not that I did or did not agree with him.It was that he spoke in a way that helped me enormously with the problems I had on my mind.I always tried to criticize him.The question is, whether my criticism of Popper is valid?But this matters here less than the fact that I found them enlightening.It is very
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.019 |
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".