Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analytic philosophy has come to dominate modern academic thought. It is a method of study that attempts to solve problems through a logical analysis of the terms in which they are expressed. In many ways, analytic philosophy strives not to discover new metaphysical or supernatural truths. Rather, it is meant to provide a deeper understanding of existing truths. This strain of philosophy, I believe, sets forth exactly those goals and methods of thinking upon which philosophy should concentrate. The investigation and clarification of the state of the world, whether through logic, metaphysics, value theory, or epistemology, is an invaluable development that is best suited to philosophical analysis. However, this restricted focus means that something must pick up where philosophy leaves off. The solutions to any potential problems or shortcomings necessarily imposed on analytic philosophy need to be found within a different realm of study. This support to philosophy can be found in the study of English, or literature. Neither realm of thought is more inherently valuable. Each is needed for different reasons, and each relies on the other. Philosophy needs literature to enter the modes of thought into which it cannot validly stray. Literature needs philosophy to provide a stable base of thought from which it can imaginatively expand. In short, no set of ideas can stand alone, and the rise of analytic philosophy has made its discipline’s role extremely clear. It has also made evident the fact that philosophy’s greatest ally and clearest counterpart is literature.
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.024 |
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".