Bibliographic record
Abstract
………………………… The important writings that follow are divided into three sections. The first, Research Essays , are more formal academic essays with generous citing and referencing sources to give credit where credit is due. They are often more cautious in their conclusions, but some of them opened my eyes in wonder. Explorations are just that – more open-ended, less proscribed by academic limitation and thus with the individuality and freedom to let their imaginations soar; yet they remain tethered to logic and well-tested facts (facts not necessarily accepted by mainstream science). The five short pieces in Statements are the result of me asking well-known and widely published authors for their honest opinion on the possibility of some sort of continuing consciousness after bodily death. Instead of research, all they had to do was refer to their previous writings. Their answers were surprising, dealing with everything from spiritual awakening to the real possibilities of revenants or ghosts that can reappear when called to, or into endless new incarnations in Nature. Each piece in Statements is followed by a short biographical note.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.027 |
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".