Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter 7 "What is Functional Research?"I wish first to thank Mark Morelli as well as other hidden instigators for this honoring of my near-death experiences.The title I chose does not seem fitting enough for the occasion, but I hope to surprise you: it is a profound topic of both history and the eschaton.It is the topic of the first of our twenty-five online seminars, the first eight on the general categories, the second eight on the special categories of Christian Faith, the third eight on the special categories of revelationary religions, the single final 25 th seminar merely a pointer to the eschatological resolution of finite exigences.1 The question of the title has not been answered by that first seminar: such an answering would be like an isolated study of neon being mistaken for an answer to the question, What is neon?, an answer given without reaching toward the other inert gases, much less reaching towards the periodic table's meshing with finitude.Our periodic table here is the relevant diagraming 2 of the ongoing cyclic genesis of the global omni-cultural Cosmopolis that was an X for Lonergan in 1953, that was seedlingly identified by him in February 1965.That seedling identification is very thin ice on which to try to skate towards globalized metaphysical equivalents: 3 so the foundational pressure should be heavily towards fantasy.Of fantasy and its chemical problem, I shall speak later, but I would have you enter hereor should I say you enter here by this bold-faced print 4 with a muster and a mustard of poise.I ask you to muster the mustard poise as best you can, 5 and that request leads me to mention two contexts: the context of my first meeting with Lonergan and the context of Mark and I first talking of a topic for 1 See the index of Phenomenology and Logic (CWL 18), under exigence.2 A handy display of such diagrams are available in Humus 2, "Metagrams and Metaphysics."3 On this problem, see the site book, Method in Theology: Refinements and Implementations, chapter 10, "Metaphysical Equivalence and Functional Specialization." 4 The strategy of bold-print emerged during the writing of the Field Nocturnes.It as a way of alerting the reader to the possibility that the reading is being done outside the poise (see the next note for a key reference, and the note following it for a key contribution to poise) of the position that cuts down naive realism of print.5 It is a slow climb to Position, and from Position to Poise: see Cantower 9, "Position, Poisition, Proto-Possession.
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 | 0.032 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".