Bibliographic record
Abstract
One would hope that you know when your father's birthday is. What was the status of this knowledge five minutes ago, when presumably your father's birthday was not at the forefront of your mind? Five minutes ago your belief of the form My father's birthday is on the _ of the month was insalient. This paper explores the ways in which rationality is affected by the fact that our beliefs can be more or less salient at any given time. I will advance two main theses- the first, which I will call the 'weak' thesis, says that two scenarios can remain constant with respect to the beliefs that an agent has, vary with respect to which beliefs are salient, and vary with respect to what is rational. Roughly speaking, the weak thesis says that salience matters to rationality. I then argue for a particular conception of how salience matters to rationality, which I will call the 'strong' thesis. The strong thesis says that given facts about which beliefs are salient, one is irrational only insofar as one has inconsistencies in one's salient beliefs. I intend the strong thesis to be useful for someone attempting to give a formalisation of rationality which takes salience into account.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".