Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metaphor has traditionally been considered antithetical to science. Metaphorical speech, which is commonly associated with the creative wordplay of poetry and fiction, would seem after all to be at cross-purpose to scientists’ efforts to articulate clear, rigorously precise, and objective statements of fact about reality. Aside from a tendency toward obscurity, the greater problem is that metaphorical expressions are typically false, literally speaking. Shakespeare’s Juliet is not literally the sun, time does not literally flow, and the genome is not a literal blueprint, book, or program. It is principally for this reason that scientists and philosophers of science have been, until rather recently, very critical of the suggestion that metaphor might play a legitimate role in the scientific process. In the early modern period, philosophers like Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke, who were enthusiastic advocates of the new scientific approach to understanding the world so brilliantly illustrated by the likes of Hooke, Boyle, and Newton, made withering criticism of metaphor as productive of nothing but falsehood and misdirection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".