Bibliographic record
Abstract
On Functional Research: IntroductionThis is, I would claim, a massively important fresh attempt to initiate Lonergans' dream of functional collaboration, of "eliminating totalitarian ambitions." 1 One of my problems is that it is an attempt which is underway in another mode with some success: this volume emerges from a seminar, an e-seminar, on functional research, that occurred in the first months of 2011.We are now at present writing, in February of the next year, in the beginning of the fifth seminar, on functional foundations.2 Is the series, heading for 25 seminars of three months each, a success?For the active sub-group of the group of 50 involved I would say yes.We are making stumbling progress towards glimpsing what Lonergan was hoping for.But it is surprisingly slow work.My problem is that the success of that slow work could fade in this 'volume version' of the attempt.It could float dead in the waters of what I could call normal reading like those two floating volumes of Lonergan, Insight and Method in Theology.Normal reading -are you with me here?-may already object that the two volumes of Lonergan mentioned are not dead in the water but on the high sea of a movement.I won't attempt an answer to that objection for the moment beyond noting that there is little sign of the functional collaboration sketched in the second half of Method.And that is our interest in the seminars, an interest that slowly reveals that, yes, Insight is dead in the water.The problem in the case of any of these volumes is the slowness of serious reading, the slowness of the exercises involved.Do you recall Lonergan's comment on such slow exercising in the Epilogue of Verbum?But let me illustrate this from the beginning of the seminar on functional 1 I quote from the Florida (1970) "Interview with Lonergan edited by McShane," A Second Collection (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974), 213 recently republished as CWL 13.The paragraph there is worth slow contemplation.2 I place an almost final footnote here to Preface and Introduction as I settle for a partial solution to my problem of presentation.I am keeping the FuSes written for the seminar, in the heat of battle, as it were, the way they emerged at that time.There is the mood of messing, of a stumbling search of months.I can only hope that somehow this mood would trespass into the consciousnesses of the readers of the volume, even if it does not come to haunt them, thus fermenting them in the coming years towards a functional poise.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.146 | 0.051 |
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".