Author’s preface and introductory essay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book originated almost accidentally, and, as it were, in the margin of regular academic 'researches'.I was preparing for the press a doctoral thesis on 'the Scottish school of common sense philosophy', and had been asked by interested publishers to add a chapter on the intellectual and social background of the Scottish philosophers.Suddenly, in gathering this introductory and general material, the whole topic deepened; unsuspected dramas were revealed; and fi nally I became so absorbed in 'the story behind the story' that, putting aside my thesis manuscript on the rise and fall of the Scottish philosophy, I launched out into a quite diff erent book, of less specialised scope, but of not less serious temper, on the rise and fall of the Scottish Universities, or, to be precise, of that central sector of them, known as the Arts Faculty.This study attempts to break new ground on a subject of interest from the general educational point of view, as well as from the point of view of Scotland's cultural contribution to the world.As befi ts a pioneer work, what matters is the question (or series of questions) started.As for the answers, explicit or implicit, which are here suggested, these are merely provisional, and other people -outside the universities, I hope, are well as inside -may want to develop diff erent sorts of answers, either more accurate in a factual view or more adequate in a practical view.A book like this inevitably owes much to others.It is, however, impossible to do justice here to the indirect sources of stimulus (in the present case very important), and I shall confi ne myself to a few direct acknowledgments.First, there was the invaluable sabbatical year granted me by Queen's University, Belfast.I must also mention the various scholars -all of them fellow-philosophers -who favoured me with comments on portions of the manuscript, the late
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.053 |
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".