Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PhilPapers <<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://philpapers.org/">http://philpapers.org/</ext-link>>, a combination index to the philosophical literature and Open Access repository, is a resource of growing importance to professional philosophers. Founded by philosophers David Chalmers and David Bourget in 2009 and based at the University of Western Ontario’s Centre for Digital Philosophy, PhilPapers relies on WebCrawlers and volunteer editors to populate its rapidly expanding set of searchable and browsable records. While its ambitions are admirable, its reliance on crowd-sourced indexing and categorization of records has resulted in spotty coverage, many indexing errors, and metadata that, through its refinement or lack thereof, reflects the professional research interests of the volunteer editors. Moreover, problems with the PhilPapers search engine makes accessing the indexed literature difficult. This review highlights the potential for PhilPapers to become a world class index as well as an ideological echo-chamber, while pointing out some of the better and more problematic aspects of the resource. It concludes with suggestions for improvement.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it