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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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; 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".