MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302765856 · doi:10.26694/pet.v4i7.2084

A QUESTÃO DO PROGRESSO DA CIÊNCIA EM KARL POPPER

2013· article· pt· W4302765856 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCadernos do PET Filosofia · 2013
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience and Science Education
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artigo tem como objetivo ampliar a visão do fazer científico, abordando a análise feita por um dos maiores epistemólogos contemporâneos da natureza do fazer científico e de sua dinâmica, de modo a contribuir para a redução do fosso existente na sociedade científico-tecnológica entre a visão dos problemas fundamentais do homem e a compreensão da ciência e de sua tecnologia. Assim sendo, o nosso estudo se restringe ao modo de ver de Karl Popper o lado mais interno da ciência, evidenciando igualmente a sua estrutura na ética que suas conquistas tecnológico-instrumentais. A questão a ser tratada é como o autor enfrenta o progresso na ciência. Mais especificamente, a ciência progride?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it