Philosophical Underpinnings of the Transdisciplinary Research Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is predicated on two assumptions. First, many scholars do not appreciate the philosophical underpinnings of their research, commonly grounded in three dominant methodologies- empirical, interpretive and critical. Second, if scholars were more familiar with a newcomer - transdisciplinary (TD) research methodology - they would be more inclined to embrace it in their research. The paper begins with an explanation of four philosophical axioms (ontology, epistemology, logic and axiology) shaping the aforementioned dominant research methodologies. Then, each Nicolescuian TD axiom is described: (a) multiple levels of Reality mediated by the Hidden Third (ontology); (b) knowledge as complex, emergent, cross-fertilized and embodied (epistemology); (c) inclusive logic (logic of complexity) to facilitate contradiction reconciliation; and (d) transdisciplinary value formation (axiology). The paper concludes with a preliminary overview of Nicolescuian TD research methodology in action. When used in concert with the three longstanding research methodologies, the Nicolescuian approach holds promise for addressing the complexities facing humanity.
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 | 0.089 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".