Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The article provides an overview on Aquinas's cognitive psychology and his views about how the things can be cognized. Aquinas's account of cognition and the acquisition of knowledge are focused on two fundamental principles: sensory perception is the starting point of human cognition and there is a significant difference between sensory powers and intellect of human beings. Aquinas mentioned that human beings are equipped with a variety of sensory powers, which can be divided into two groups, the external senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch) and the internal senses (the common sense, imagination, the estimative power, memory). Aquinas concluded that human beings have a cognitive power, the intellect, which transcends the sensory powers. Aquinas described the intellect's reliance on sensation in general and the images provided by the imagination in particular with the talk of ‘connaturality’ (connaturalitas) between the intellect and the input provided by the sensory powers. Aquinas argued that cognitive acts require the reception of representational devices or ‘species’ (species). Aquinas argued that there is theological knowledge, which is a nonparadigmatic form of knowledge (scientia). The most important distinction between theological knowledge and naturally acquired knowledge is that the principles of naturally acquired knowledge are self-evident for the knowing subject, whereas the principles of theological knowledge, the articles of faith, are accepted on the basis of the light of faith, which is a gift of divine grace.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.013 |
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".