Bibliographic record
Abstract
© 2016 Dalhousie University. All rights reserved. Though there are powerful arguments for a unifying, 'monotheistic,' philosophy, we must in practice acknowledge that we have no grand unified theory, in cosmology, ethics, politics or religion.WehavenoideawhattheOnemightbe,andmanywarnings against presuming that we do. Pluralism has political roots, and psychological aspects: better that there are many authorities both in the state and in the human soul. It is even possible that there are many powers, deserving a little the title 'gods,' in a macrocosmic reality: the very attempt to avoid the argument from 'fine tuning,' for example, so multiplies the number of real alternate worlds as to make it almost certain that there are such gods, who might very well have a say in our cosmology, our history and our very selves.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.233 | 0.062 |
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".