Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book description: Nowadays, philosophy and methodology of science appear as a combination of novelty and continuity. This blend is clear both in the general approaches to science (those thought of as any science) and in the specific perspectives on every science, either formal or empirical. There are new topics for philosophical reflection, such as key issues in philosophy of medicine and central problems raised by neuroscience. Thus, new contents have brought attention to aspects that previously went almost unnoticed. In addition, there are new angles for philosophical study, such as the repercussion of society on scientific activity (in aims, processes, and results). But the background of the main philosophical and methodological trends of the twentieth century is, in many ways, still in place. Wenceslao J. Gonzalez is Professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science. He has been a visiting researcher at the Universities of St. Andrews, Münster and London (LSE), as well as Visiting fellow at the Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh. He has given lectures at the Universities of Pittsburgh, Stanford, Quebec and Helsinki. The conferences in which he has participated include those organized by the Universities of Uppsala, New South Wales, Bologna, and Canterbury (New Zealand). He has edited 21 volumes, among them are Philosophy and Methodology of Economics (1998) and Science, Technology and Society: A Philosophical Perspective (2005). Jesus Alcolea is Reader [Titular Professor] of Logic and Philosophy of Science. He undertook research at Smith College (Northampton, MA) with Th. Tymoczko. His focus of research has been on philosophy of mathematics: “Proof as a Way to Increase Understanding” (1996), “Fallibilism and Realism in Lakatos” (1999), “Vigencia del Pensamiento filosófico-matemático de Imre Lakatos” (2001), and “La extensión de los conceptos matemáticos” (2005).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".