Bibliographic record
Abstract
we are now in a position to undertake a closer examination of the details of the actual projects for achieving objectivity presented in Der logische Aufbau der Welt . An outline of Carnap's levels of constitution is, therefore, in order. In this way, we will be able to see what Carnap is doing in his two projects. Again, many questions about constitution and the order of the definitions will not be addressed in order to focus our attention solely on the question of the way the constitutional system explicates the objectivity of scientific claims. THE LOWEST LEVELS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM The constitutional system meant to mirror the epistemic primacy relation begins, as we have noted, from a single relation, the “recollection of similarity” relation ( Rs ), over total cross-sections of experience at a time. Carnap's first order of business in the constitutional system is to constitute the rich texture of individual psychological life, the auto psychological domain, from this slender basis (cf., esp. §§108–20). Our primary concern is with the role of the auto psychological domain in the construction of objectivity, so I shall only sketch the definitions here. Of primary importance for our purposes is the final accounting of the auto psychological domain and the transition to the world of physics. Before discussing the definitions, there is a noteworthy aspect of Carnap's procedure that warrants a brief mention. In accordance with the methodological strictures of “purely structural definite description” ( PSDD ), the definitions depend only on the structure of the recollection of similarity relation, but this structure is itself only empirically known.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".