Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the language used by those who take an empirical approach to the study of consciousness, the subliminal–supraliminal binary and the unconscious–conscious process binary are treated as one and the same, despite the unconscious–conscious process distinction having a historical association to a different meaning. The historical meaning of the unconscious–conscious process distinction may then become implicitly associated with the interpretations of related studies, resulting in a misinterpretation of evidence. This is to say, where the ability to differentially respond to subliminal and supraliminal stimuli may be indicative of a variety of “unconscious” and “conscious” processes, as these terms relate to a qualitative conception of consciousness, subliminal threshold testing does not tell us anything about consciousness and the associated binary of “unconscious” and “conscious” processes as these terms relate to their historical, metacognitive conceptions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".