MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922344696 · doi:10.13130/2037-4445/10802

Alcune considerazioni sulla possibilità metafisica dei supercompiti

2018· article· it· W2922344696 on OpenAlexaff
Matteo Casarosa

Bibliographic record

VenueRiviste UNIMI (Università degli studi di Milano) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPragmatism in Philosophy and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In questo articolo, introduco un nuovo supercompito metafisicamente impossibile. Considero e rifiuto alcune possibili obiezioni, sviluppando un confronto e sottolineando delle analogie con altri supercompiti discussi nella letteratura. Concludo che anche quest'ultimi sono metafisicamente impossibili, presentando quindi delle considerazioni e difficoltà generali rispetto alla possibilità metafisica dei supercompiti.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRiviste UNIMI (Università degli studi di Milano)Same topicPragmatism in Philosophy and EducationFrench-language works237,207