What Is An Ideal Critical Thinker Expected to Conclude about Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical thinking involves the ability to properly assess statements and actions, and it also requires a permanent disposition to appropriately use cognitive skills in the evaluation of any claim. In the present paper, we discuss the characteristics of an ideal critical thinker, and apply them to a contemporary problem, namely anthropogenic global warming (AGW, a hypothesis that accounts for the increase of the average temperature of Earth as a consequence of human activities), in order to discuss what an ideal critical thinker is expected to conclude about the occurrence of this phenomenon. We assume that an ideal critical thinker is able to find out where the most reliable information regarding a certain issue is, is competent to reasonably evaluate it, and has an inclination to calibrate her beliefs according to the results of the inquiry. We thus conclude that an ideal critical thinker is expected to accept the current scientific consensus that AGW is occurring, albeit considering this issue, as well as virtually any other idea, open to revision. The fact that in many occasions people are selective in using critical thinking skills, such as when they reject the massive evidence of AGW, should be a cause of concern for educators, who should motivate their students to think critically about any problem and question they encounter; this, in turn, could help the students to develop a better understanding of the world, take more reasonable courses of action, and be protected against misinformation.
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 | 0.025 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".