MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787458273 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11382

Leveling the Field: Talking Levels in Cognitive Science

2016· dissertation· en· W2787458273 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

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorCognitionField (mathematics)Cognitive scienceConceptual metaphorEpistemologyPsychologyComputer sciencePhilosophyLinguisticsNeuroscienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis aims to advance the study of cognitive science by examining the "levels metaphor." The levels metaphor is defined as the application of levels talk to various aspects of scientific investigation. The thesis examines several applications of the levels metaphor within cognitive science and provides a conceptual framework for analyzing discussion. The thesis argues for a pluralistic approach to levels. The main claim is that different applications of the levels metaphor are justified insofar as attention is paid to how and why the metaphor is deployed. To show that my approach has practical applications, I discuss the role of levels within computational cognitive modeling.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207