Singular content and de jure coreference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation is composed by three chapters which, albeit dealing with distinct particular issues in the philosophy of language and mind, share the underlying assumption that the concept of de jure coreference must be at the forefront of theorizing about singular thought and representation. In chapter 2, I will try to rehabilitate I will argue that the differences of cognitive value between sentences, such as "Cicero is Cicero" and "Cicero is Tully", boil down to the occurrence (or lack thereby) of the relation of de jure coreference between their referential tokens. Since, as I will show, the acknowledgement of that relation does not presuppose any substantial semantic theory, it may logically be used to ground the introduction of Senses. Chapter 3 assesses whether the introduction of Senses is successful in explaining de jure coreference in view of the fact that the latter was claimed to be a non-transitive relation We will argue that the postulation of Senses can ground a relation that is non-transitive, since Senses can instantiate relations more fine-grained than mere identity or difference, e.g. having a part in common. Finally, the last chapter contains a discussion about singular content in diachronic scenarios involving indexical expressions. I will claim that theories rescinding from factivity, i.e. the claim that identity of content entails coreference, stand in no better footing than theories that rescind from transparency, i.e. the claim that identity of content is knowable a priori. Since we have explicit reasons to maintain these two claims, we might need to adopt a theory such as However, I will claim that Recanati is wrong about some important details, more particularly, about whether there can ever be proper identity of content between memory representations and the representations which they are a memory of. My final point is that, if my arguments are sound, we may need to distinguish the relation of identity of modes of presentation from cognitive value, the former being more fine-grained than the latter.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".