MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115966624 · doi:10.17684/i12a167ro

Haosul hazardului sau cosmosul determinismului?

2020· article· ro· W3115966624 on OpenAlexaff
Francisc Gafton

Bibliographic record

VenueDiacronia · 2020
Typearticle
Languagero
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association for the Study of Adult Education
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tot ceea ce există decurge din ceva anterior și se supune unor factori determinanți, adică are antecedenți și cauze, care dețin antecedenți și cauze, indiferent de dificultatea de a analiza exhaustiv elementele lanțului cauzal (adică de a le cuantifica forțele, ierarhia, și ponderile, de a le stabili gradele de conjuncție, interdeterminare și colaborare, de a le monitoriza, matematiza și algortimiza componentele), nimic nefiind aleatoriu și lipsit de determinare. O astfel de dificultate sau de imposibilitate nu poate genera sau constitui motiv de a concluziona că astfel de procese complexe ar fi indeterminate și aleatorii, întrucît ele sînt riguros determinate de o multitudine de factori inextricabil întrețesuți.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.030

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 head0.335
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.089 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiacroniaSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207