Bibliographic record
Abstract
Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy , first published in 1641, are devoted to the following philosophical questions: What can we come to know about the human mind and its powers? Is there a reality behind appearances, and, if so, how can we have access to it? Do our experiences arise from our bodies and our brains, or could we think, feel, and perceive without them? How can we recognize truth and distinguish it from false and confused opinion? Is there is a God, and, if so, is this God benevolent, malevolent, or simply indifferent to us? If this God is benevolent, how should we understand illness, error, and morally wrong actions? This book is intended as a first introduction to the Meditations and, at the same time, as an introduction to some basic problems and terminology of analytic philosophy, including the theory of knowledge, metaphysics, philosophy of science, philosophy of perception, and philosophy of language. No previous experience in philosophy is presupposed. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the problem of knowledge in Cartesian terms and Chapters 2–11 lead the reader through the arguments of the Meditations , explaining and commenting on the important points along the way. Chapter 12 offers an explanation of the relationship of the Meditations to Descartes's other writings, and discusses the conflicting perceptions of Descartes in his own time. It outlines the relationship between Cartesian problems and doctrines and the evolution of modern philosophy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.008 |
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".