MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212817736 · doi:10.1017/s0140525x20001776

Exchanging humpty dumpties is not a solution: Why a representational view of knowledge must be replaced with an action-based approach

2021· article· en· W3212817736 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral and Brain Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Knowledge representation and reasoningSocial knowledgeSocial relation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In arguing for knowledge representation before belief, Phillips et al. presuppose a representational theory of knowledge, a view that has been extensively criticized. As an alternative, we propose an action-based approach to knowledge, conceptualized in terms of skill. We outline the implications of this approach for children's developing social understanding, beginning with sensorimotor interaction and extending to the verbal level.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.030
Scholarly communication0.0050.030
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral and Brain SciencesSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207