Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Charles Sanders Peirce emphasizes the way in which various kinds of signs mediate between the represented and the interpreted in order to create “habits” of social action; that is, we tend to think that a sign adequately represents what it is supposed to designate and often do not give the relationships between signs and their designated referents much thought. The apparently simple addition of a third item in the relationship between an “object” of thought and the “subject” who is doing the thinking allows us to move beyond a simplistic application of Cartesian subject–object, mind–body dualism. Peirce's critique of Cartesian dualism makes it clear that an epistemology that focuses on the solitary individual “subject” as an interpreter of “objects” is severely misleading. Peirce's correction of Descartes's logic and epistemology parallels Einstein's extension of Newton's physics. The isolated individual scientist (e.g., Galileo) never exists in reality. All scientific understanding is ultimately based on communities of scholars or “invisible colleges” that collectively interpret “facts” based on signs that are recognized by the majority of those who belong to the network. Peirce is widely considered to be a pathbreaking thinker.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.009 |
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".