Bibliographic record
Abstract
IHere are some well-known principles featuring iterated modalities: 1 (B) If Φ, then necessarily possibly Φ.(4) If necessarily Φ, then necessarily necessarily Φ.(5) If possibly Φ, then necessarily possibly Φ.The Kneales report that C.I. Lewis, the founder of modern modal logic, was inclined to deny that each instance of the above principles holds, 2 while Bennett remarks that their universal generalisations "have an unusually irritating quality, in that there appear to be at first sight powerful reasons for rejecting [them], and at the same time equally powerful ones for rejecting their contradictories".3 Prior notes that "many people would find [the view that (5) always obtains] very dubious", although he is tempted to accept the universal forms of (B), (4), and (5), because modal logics without formal analogues of those principles are "clumsy".4 More recently, Armstrong once denied that (B) and ( 5) always hold, 5 while we will see below that Chandler and Salmon have force-Imprint Philosophers' dominic gregory
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".