MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606140329 · doi:10.37693/pjos.2016.7.16469

¬Peirce’s Creative Hallucinations in the Ontogeny of Abductive Reasoning

2017· article· en· W2606140329 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Journal of Semiotics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)HabitInferenceAbductive reasoningPsychologyCognitive scienceDeductive reasoningCognitive psychologyEpistemologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This inquiry proposes that Peirce’s ultimate concept of dreams, which can be sub-divided in seven different functions, supply the raw material for habit-change inherent in every plausible inference. With references to developmental literature, I propose that dreams represent an outlet whereby children rely upon vivid directional icons of events (virtual habits) in reconciling logical anomalies provoked by unexpected happenings. Accordingly, dreams supply insights into how potential happenings materialize – identifying which factors can enhance/enrich the effectiveness of potential event outcomes. Dreams of this creative kind are not obsessional or socially driven but rather form the bedrock for conceiving of many meritorious insights, as shown in phenomena like children’s prelinguistic habits, word substitutions, overextensions, role-play and perspective taking.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it