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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I found reading Rowett's excellent book, Knowledge and Truth in Plato, oddly exhausting; partly in the sense in which looking at a source of brightness and clarity can be exhausting, and partly because, while I find myself enthusiastically agreeing with her overall argument, I am not quite comfortable with some of the details. Rowett argues, among many other things, that Plato rejects the assumption that to understand a concept is to be able to state its definition, and replaces it with what she calls his ‘iconic method’. She also argues that when Plato speaks of epistēmē, he means conceptual knowledge, i.e. the grasp of a type qua type (or, equivalently, a concept). It seems easier to see what conceptual knowledge is not. Rowett argues, convincingly, that conceptual knowledge is not propositional (p. 107) or linguistic (p. 113). Although it may sometimes enable us to state definitions (p. 163), such statements are mere manifestations of it, not to be confused with conceptual knowledge itself (p. 27). Second, conceptual knowledge is not a sort of acquaintance with a non-propositional object. Following Frege, Rowett distinguishes between concepts and objects in terms of their role (p. 264), so that justice, for instance, cannot be an object of predication while at the same time functioning as a concept. Therefore, to grasp a concept qua concept is not to grasp an object, whether by description or acquaintance. Third, Rowett argues that conceptual knowledge is not a form of ‘know how’. On this latter point, I find her argument less than coercive. She says that ‘someone who has a grasp of a concept is likely to exhibit know-how as a result, but we should not infer that the knowledge consists in the “knowing how”’ (p. 270). I can see two ways of reading this. The point might be that just as an ability does not consist in any finite number of performances, conceptual knowledge does not consist in any finite number of abilities. But why should this be true? Abilities do not differ from concepts in the same way in which particular performances differ from abilities. Alternatively, Rowett might be making the valid point that where conceptual knowledge and an ability manifest themselves in the same behaviour, this does not imply that they are the same. This observation, however, will not force anyone to admit that conceptual knowledge is not an ability. It is possible that conceptual knowledge is more fundamental than any given ability that rests on it, but it remains equally possible that conceptual knowledge is itself an ability, and thus a form of knowing how.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it