Bibliographic record
Abstract
One sometimes reads a critical notice hoping to learn enough about the volume under consideration to avoid having to read it oneself. There is little chance of that here! The volume under consideration is an anthology with nearly 400 pages of primary text, including a Preface and Introduction by the editors, the latter including the contributors’ abstracts of their 23 new, substantial, essays about the so-called ‘Gettier Problem’ and its role in shaping ‘post-Gettier analytic epistemology’ for the past 50 years.1 Edmund Gettier’s famous three page paper, ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’, published in Analysis, June 1965, also appears. The authors of these new essays (three of which are co-authored) include some of the earliest major contributors to the debate sparked by Gettier’s paper, like Peter Klein, Robert Shope, Keith Lehrer, Alvin Goldman and Fred Dretske. Also represented are later important contributors, like Ernest Sosa, Linda Zagzebski, Risto Hilpinen and Jonathan Kvanvig. Still newer voices include E.J. Coffman, Susanna Schellenberg, Stephen Hetherington, Duncan Pritchard, Jessica Brown, Peter Blouw/Wesley Buckwalter/John Turri, Jonathan Weinberg, Rodrigo Borges, Claudio de Almeida, Brandon Fitelson, John Hawthorne/Dani Rabinowitz, Richard Foley, Jonathan Vogel and last but not least: Sherrilyn Roush. These newer voices have previous related publications, in some cases monographs that develop their respective perspectives as laid out in their contributions here. The resulting collection is a dizzying complex of well-worked-out, sometimes complementing, other times competing, views about the goals of epistemology, its foundations, and what the role ought to be, if any, of the Gettier Problem in contemporary post-Gettier epistemology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.008 |
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".