Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Treatise 1.2, Of the ideas of space and time, Hume examines our ideas of spatial extension and temporal duration, our ideas of geometric equality, straightness, flatness, and mathematical point, and our ideas of a vacuum and of time without change. Hume does not, however, restrict his attention to these ideas; he also draws conclusions about space and time themselves. He argues that space and time are not infinitely divisible, that their smallest parts must be occupied, and that as a consequence there is no vacuum or interval of time without change. His treatments of matters beyond the scope of the section's title have received harsh criticism. His conclusions have seemed contrary to mathematics and physics. His method of arguing - applying features of our mere ideas of space and time to space and time themselves - has seemed philosophically inept. The apparent success of these criticisms has led to widespread neglect of this part of Hume's work. The neglect is unfortunate. In Of the ideas of space and time Hume gives important characterizations of the skeptical approach that will be developed in the rest of the Treatise. When that approach is better understood, the force of Hume’s arguments concerning space and time can be appreciated, and the influential criticisms of them can be seen to miss the mark.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".