MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2306261904 · doi:10.5216/phi.v20i1.36115

É O CONCEITO DE TECNOCIÊNCIA CONFUSO?

2015· article· pt· W2306261904 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilósophos - Revista de Filosofia · 2015
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience and Science Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to support the concept of technoscience is not confused when its meaning is understood in certain ways. The use of this concept is found inside and outside the academic world. However, not all philosophers are satisfied it is applied in philosophy of science and technology. Mario Bunge (2012) argues that the concept is generating confusion regarding the classical distinction between pure science, applied and technology. According to the Argentine-Canadian philosopher, the only acceptable sense of the term occurs when applied to the activity of individuals who are both scientists and technologists, as was the case of Galileo and Tesla. Countering this position, we think that the term can be used, at least not so confusing in the sense proposed by the philosopher Javier Echeverría (2003; 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.243 · 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