Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current formulation of the second law is flawed since it does not specify the causal relations between the outcomes of theory assessment and the actual acceptance/unacceptance of a theory; it merely tells us that a theory was assessed by the method employed at the time. We propose a new formulation of the second law: “If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method actually employed at the time, then it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if it is inconclusive whether the theory satisfies the method, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.” This new formulation makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit. Also, this new formulation is not a tautology because it forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted. Finally, we outline what inferences an observational scientonomist can make regarding theory assessment outcomes from the record of accepted theories.Suggested Modifications[Sciento-2017-0004]:Accept the following reformulation of the second law:The second law: if a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.Accept the following definitions of theory assessment outcomes:Outcome: satisfied ≡ the theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.Outcome: not satisfied ≡ the theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.Outcome: inconclusive ≡ it is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.Accept the following ontology of theory assessment outcomes:The three possible outcomes of theory assessment are “satisfied”, “not satisfied”, and “inconclusive”.Accept the following redefinition of employed method:Employed method ≡ a method is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of the community.Reject:The previous formulation of the second law.The previous definitions of theory assessment outcomes.The previous ontology of theory assessment outcomes.The previous definition of employed method. [Sciento-2017-0005]:Contingent upon the acceptance of the preceding modification [Sciento-2017-0004], accept that the new second law is not a tautology. [Sciento-2017-0006]:Contingent upon the acceptance of modification [Sciento-2017-0004], accept the following set of inferences of theory assessment outcomes from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender (see text).Also accept the following set of inferences of theory assessment outcomes from the acceptance or unacceptance of two contender theories (see text).
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 | 0.030 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".