Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relevance of the study is caused by a constructivist epistemology challenge, which consists in assertion that all human conceptions of the world are his mental construction. The problem (scientific problem) in this case cannot be a starting point of cognitive actions of the subject due to the fact that the knowledge of the latter is formed solely by the reason of his personal initiative, but not contradictions he encounters at the beginning of knowledge. Hence both the purpose and the research derive. The objective of the study is to explicate the epistemological status of the problem (scientific problem) within the constructivist approach. Methods: method of explication, method of comparative analysis. Results: The author has considered the epistemological positions of constructivism, which are based on the concept of subject-oriented focus of knowledge. The possibility of identifying various intersections of traditional epistemology and constructivist cognitive model was analyzed by the example of the interpretation of a subject role in each presented concept. The author comes to the conclusion that at total unacceptability of constructivist epistemology (especially in the version of radical constructivism) the latter plays a positive role, which consists in occurrence of bases for using another criterion to assess the cognitive implication of scientific problems – the environmental one.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".