Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instead of carrying a photograph of his wife Patricia in his wallet, the Canadian neurophilosopher Paul Churchland has a scan of her brain.As passionate advocates of eliminative materialism, the couple view psychological phenomena such as belief, hope and love as constructions of the imagination.It is their contention that, in essence, the brain comprises merely the interaction between the neurons contained therein.Believing in a human mind is the same as believing that the earth is flat.The irony is that this act of holding on to a scan, intended to tease romantics, can also be viewed as an ultra-romantic expression of love.At least that is the opinion of José van Dijck and Robert Zwijnenberg."Churchland says that the brain scan shows more of his wife than a photograph.In this way he romanticizes the brain scan …", says Zwijnenberg.Van Dijck responds: "Which, of course, reminds me of Thomas Mann." Zwijnenberg: "Yes!The Magic Mountain."Van Dijck: "The passage in which TB patient Hans Castorp inspects the X-ray of his fellow patient, with whom he is in love.This image transports him to a pink cloud of love because he can see inside her.He keeps the X-ray for years in his wallet.Churchland's story is exactly the same."Zwijnenberg: "I'm impressed with how Mann is able to eroticize an X-ray.For Castorp it is an erotic experience to see inside his beloved's ribcage.The image is not only a medical or technological product but also functions as an essential aspect of an emotional relationship between two people.In this way Mann gives the X-ray a place in the cultural context of human relations."This exchange between Van Dijck and Zwijnenberg is typical of the manner in which they engage in the debate with other academic disciplines.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 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".