Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Terms of ITT Church described in [30] a logic of sense and denotation based on the simple theory of types [28]; that is, using the terminology of Carnap, a logic of intension and extension. ITT differs from that logic in two ways: First ITT is based on TT and not on the simple theory of types; but of greater importance, ITT identifies the intension of a predicate with its name while the logic of Church treats intensions as separate entities with their own types and notation. The justification for this identification is the belief that in a given context a user discovers the intension of a predicate from its name. The types of ITT, an intensional type theory, are the types of TT, and the constants and variables of ITT are those of TT. The terms of ITT are an extension of those of TT. Definition 29 of term of TT in § 2.1.1 is extended for ITT by a fourth clause that introduces a secondary typing for some of the terms of ITT. Since secondary typing is the main feature of ITT that distinguishes it from TT, it will be motivated in § 3.1.1 before being formally expressed in clause (4) of Definition 43 in § 3.1.2. Motivation for secondary typing. The purpose of secondary typing in ITT is to provide a simple but unambiguous way of distinguishing between an occurrence of a predicate name where it is being used and an occurrence where it is being mentioned. The necessity for recognizing this distinction has been stressed many times and a systematic use of quotes is traditionally employed for expressing it; see for example [24] or [120]. But the systematic use of quotes is awkward in a formal logic and subject to abuses as described by Church in footnote 136 of [31]. Secondary typing exploits the typing notation of TT to distinguish between a used predicate name and a mentioned predicate name and is not subject to the abuses cited by Church.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".