Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Latin America, philosophical analysis has been portrayed as an intellectual revolution. Its avowed goal has been to replace the abstruseness and obscurantism of scholastic and metaphysical jargon perceived as typical of much of Latin American philosophy with the clarity and rigour of mathematical and scientific discourse. Arriving around the mid-1940s analytic philosophy at first met with little interest because of a shortage of its classics in translation, cultural obstacles and opposition from the more traditional, entrenched philosophies. By the 1960s it had overcome many obstacles and stimulated considerable philosophical activity, mainly in Mexico and Argentina. By the 1980s, in spite of political opposition, analysis had created an international forum for the discussion of philosophical problems. It attracted to its ranks several distinguished philosophers and scientists with philosophical interests, among them Mario Bunge (Argentina and Canada), Héctor-Neri Castañeda (Guatemala and the USA) and Francisco Miró Quesada (Peru). An ambitious translation effort was launched and several important journals were founded, such as Análisis filosófico (Philosophical Analysis), Revista latinoamericana de filosofía (Latin American Journal of Philosophy) (Argentina), Crítica. Revista hispanoamericana de filosofía (Criticism. Hispanoamerican Journal of Philosophy) (Mexico), Manuscrito (Manuscript) (Brazil) and Diálogos (Dialogues) (Puerto Rico).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".