Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development and the importance acquired in the last years of the so called Historical Epistemology foundation essentially in not division between context of justification / discovery; or Epistemology and History of Science, but rather a possible joint that strengthens the historical area as seat of the identity in which it is possible to discuss styles of thought and action in science. On the other hand, it is the approach that has promoted the reading unified of traditions in the area epistémico so much continental or French, since anglo Americans, and acertadamente it has been nourished of the developments of the Epistemología in restricted sense, the Social Studies in Science and the History of the Science.Initially the approach was dedicated to giving sense to a style of thought in Philosophy of the Science, Michel Foucault is necessary to name contemporary exponents in Gastón Bachelard, Georges Canguilhem; Jean-Francois Braunstein (University of The Sorbona, Paris I); Ian Hacking and Lorraine Daston (University of Toronto) To. Davidson (University of Chicago) and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (Institute Max Planck in Berlin), between others. His deployment was accompanied by the authors' reading that they were adjoining in the limits of more than one discipline and that they were relating to the subject to his scientific community: Ludwig Fleck (I am used of pensamiento/group of thought), or Alistair Crombie (styles of thought and methods of investigation in the European tradition in science). In this one work is analyzed the application of distinctions established by the Historical Epistemology in the area of the history of the Archaeology.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it