MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325610899 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n2p149

The Hierarchy of Values in the Contemporary Science

2016· article· en· W2325610899 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yurii Mielkov

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicScientific Research and Philosophical Inquiry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialecticContradictionEpistemologyIdeal (ethics)MonismHierarchyConstructiveSociologyValue (mathematics)PersonalityComprehensionPsychologySocial psychologyComputer sciencePhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.074
Scholarly communication0.0180.018
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicScientific Research and Philosophical InquiryFrench-language works237,207