MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112341774 · doi:10.1093/pq/pqaa079

Avicenna on the Ontology of Pure Quiddity

2020· article· en· W3112341774 on OpenAlexaffabout
Boris Hennig

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Philosophical Quarterly · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval and Classical Philosophy
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologyPhilosophyLibrary scienceEpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Damien Janos has written a comprehensive study on an arcane but central notion in Avicenna: the whatness (māhiyya, quidditas) of a thing, considered purely in itself, or as Janos abbreviates, ‘pure quiddity’. The title, Avicenna on the Ontology of Pure Quiddity, might sound like an oxymoron. Ontology, one might think, is the study of existence, and Avicenna famously argues that existence does not belong to the essence of any contingent being. If so, ontology will have no business with any such essence, considered purely in itself. Seen in this way, Janos’ main thesis is exciting. He argues that all pure quiddities qualify for...

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Philosophical QuarterlySame topicMedieval and Classical PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207