Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans un article récent (2011), Steglich-Petersen prétend être en mesure de fournir une explication téléologique de la nature des raisons épistémiques qui (i) échappe aux objections standards soulevées contre ce type d’approche et (ii) soit compatible avec la thèse évidentialiste selon laquelle les raisons épistémiques de croire l’emportent toujours sur les raisons non-épistémiques (à supposer qu’il y ait de telles raisons). Je soutiens que sa proposition est incapable de rendre justice à l’idée selon laquelle les données probantes constituent des raisons épistémiques, et plus généralement, qu’il est incohérent de soutenir à la fois que les raisons épistémiques sont instrumentales, que croire le vrai et ne pas croire le faux possèdent une valeur épistémique et que les données probantes fournissent des raisons épistémiques.
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 | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".