Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter 4 Working Towards a Standard ModelA rather neat way of posing the problem of lifting our exercise in functional research towards a better appreciation of the need for and presence, or absence, of an adequate standard model is to bring together two chapters of Lonergan's works: chapter seven of Insight, "Common Sense as Object" and chapter six of Method, "Research."We have brought those two chapters together already, indeed, though implicitly, in that functional research, about which Method hovers ineffectually, is part of the answer that emerged in 1965 to the problem of Cosmopolis posed at the end of chapter seven of Insight.It would be good to add to this a messy but slowly illuminating pause over the word as in the title of the Insight chapter, and pull in Lonergan's reflections, in Phenomenology and Logic, on the meaning and significance of the phrase subject-as-subject. 1 The messing is directed providentially for me, and so for you, by the challenge of commenting on four submissions to our project that I am trying to handle today.The four submissions are in the order mentioned in the e-mail that I quote immediately, sent to the four.The e-mail is an illustration of the fuller collaboration required by our project within this seeding of the full effective global functional collaboration.What we are finding is that the question, 'What is Functional Research?' cannot be isolated from the full question of the functional structure indicated by Lonergan in 1969 (eventually appearing as chapter 5 of Method in Theology).But let me get into the messing first, which begins with my e-mail to the group.Notice, as best you can what is going-on.2 The messing anticipates the emergence of precise conversations of all of us, linked together by diagrams that have yet to emerge, but the dominant diagram 1 See the index in that volume, under Subject, near the end.I do not pause much over this text here, but it haunts our search here for its word, HOW.2 "Noticing what is going on" in its innovative fullness is a task of the third specialty, boosted to creativity by the inflow from research that is lifted to what-answerings by the second specialty.The functional researchers' task is to select, refine and channel on to interpreters, neatly and effectively, in microspurts rather than in a hose-ups, what is noted.In the full culture of the standard model I would not have to note for you that Notice at the beginning of the sentence to which this note refers had/has all those meanings for you.In almost all submissions regarding anomalies, including the four great contributions talked of here, there inclines to be a hose-up.
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 | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".