Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is proposed that studying individual tasks in isolation is a solution to Fodor's problem: how can we break down the empirical project in psychology into tractable units?The taskoriented approach is in this sense an alternative to the modular view of the mind.I propose a definition of a task as a researcher-defined unit of study that corresponds to a reconfiguration of resources in an animal-enviroment system; this reconfiguration: is meaningful to a perceiver-actor; is amenable to precise characterization; specifies criteria for succesful completion of the task; and provides a guide to researchers on how to generalize empirical conclusions drawn from the study of a given phenomenon.The task-oriented approach is well-suited to the study of certain phenomena that the standard brainoriented approach struggles to characterize, such as collaborative activity.Framing the dichotomy between the approaches in terms of methodology allows us to avoid fruitless ontological discussions about external content.
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 | 0.054 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.093 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".