Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the article, the author offers an original version of the solution to the problem of the atomicity of social events. The relevance of the topic is due to the fact that it is indivisibility that makes it possible to distinguish an event from other social phenomena/processes. From the author’s point of view, the event must have a certain duration, which is atomic. As the first step, the author, relying on a wide range of sources that include the views of various theorists, considers the problem of the indivisibility of social events in the current theory of events. The author notes that logical-semantic interpretations of the indivisibility of events have become more widespread than the statement of ontological atomicity. Furthermore, the author dwells, in detail, on the interpretation of atomicity by observation. Analyzing the views of D. Davidson, A. F. Filippov, and others, the author proves that in the case of atomicity, by observation: (1) the criteria for this atomicity are rather blurred; (2) the event is a consequence not only of the observer’s figure, but also of his system of distinction and motives; (3) the complexity may be related to the spatial factor; and 4) the event itself is confused with the fact. The author also believes that limiting social events only to what is available to the human eye is not in line with modern trends. Additionally, the author shows the productivity of understanding the event as an object. In contrast to the participants in discussions aimed at distinguishing an event and an object, the author uses object conceptualization offered by object-oriented ontology. Events, which as objects are capable of change while retaining their indivisibility and stability, can be associated not only with the material but also with the ideal sphere, and have a system of distinctions. The proposed scheme allows us to assert the impossibility of negative events, gives a reason not only to talk about the atomicity of the event but to also emphasize the ontological foundations of this atomicity, and also offers the possibility of thinking about the social beyond the observed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".