MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760324339 · doi:10.1002/sres.2488

Strategies for Discovering Scientific Systems Principles

2017· article· en· W2760324339 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSystems Research and Behavioral Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsSurrey Place Centre
FundersUniversity of Oregon
KeywordsAnalogySystems scienceManagement scienceScientific discoveryComputer scienceSystems theorySystems thinkingComplex systemEngineering ethicsEpistemologyData scienceCognitive sciencePsychologyEngineeringArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of a general theory of systems has been impeded by lack of progress with identifying and refining scientific general systems principles that could underpin the systematic discovery of systems laws and development of predictive systems theories. This paper discusses a model of the nature, roles and developmental pathways of principles in science generally and by analogy suggests ways in which scientific systems principles might be identified and leveraged by systems science. Eight strategies for such research are identified, and preliminary results of a first pilot project are presented. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0640.004
Open science0.0040.002
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 head0.729
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.133 · 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