Bibliographic record
Abstract
GROUP MINDS AND THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR IN THE BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES There are two strands to our thinking about where the mind begins and ends, and the role that the individual has in demarcating that boundary. First, individuals are paradigmatic subjects or bearers of mental states: They are the things, perhaps the only things, which literally have minds. Minds are where, perhaps only where, people are. Second, individuals serve as some sort of boundary for the mind. Minds are located inside individuals, and we do not need to consider the body or the extracranial world in theorizing about the nature of minds. The argument of Parts Two and Three has been that this second strand to our thinking about the relationship between individuals and minds is mistaken. For the most part, this rejection of the mind as bounded by the individual has gone hand-in-hand with the acceptance of minds as belonging to individuals. In Part Four, this latter view is reconsidered. I shall take seriously the idea that individuals are not the only kind of thing that has a mind. In particular, I focus on the idea that groups can have minds. Doing so will take us beyond the cognitive to both the biological and social sciences. For it is in these other parts of the fragile sciences that the idea of a group mind has a rich history, a history appealed to in a number of contemporary discussions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".