The Hierarchy of Values in the Contemporary Science
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The author follows the philosophical conception of the contemporary science that presents it as “post-non-classical”—as an emerging paradigm of dialectical comprehension of scientific knowledge that resolves the contradiction between classical monism and non-classical plurality by enabling the approach to considering the reality as unity in plurality. In the light of that conception, scientific values and goals constitute an elaborate hierarchical system, its highest level being presented by the ideal as the embodiment of both the final goal of the whole activity and the fundamental value that defines the goal-setting on lower hierarchy levels. The current crisis of science, as well as crises visible in many other spheres of human activity, could in fact be traced to the crisis of values—particularly, to the latency of the higher levels of values, and especially that of the ideal, that forces lower “means” to serve as quasi-values while profaning the whole enterprise. That is, instead of searching for the truth, scientific community is engaged only in mundane activities like supporting its own institutional existence and providing profit for its members. The proposed solution to the current crisis could be presented in the form of asserting human personality as the autonomous subject of moral judgment and philosophical recognition of the ideal level as the ultimate determinant of scientific activity.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it