MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What Is Future-Proof Science?

2022· book-chapter· en· W4306865891 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Vickers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and History of Science
Canadian institutionsPrevention of Organ Failure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumilitySkepticismEpistemologySubject (documents)Key (lock)Subject matterComputer sciencePhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter introduces the subject matter, provides an initial framework for discussion, and offers a brief characterisation of key concepts (to be gradually enriched as the book progresses). An indicative list of 30 examples of ‘future-proof science’ is put forward, including singular scientific facts as well as more involved bodies of thought, or theories. The chapter provides a preliminary sense of how the concept of an ‘established scientific fact’ will be related to discussions of scepticism, epistemic humility, misleading evidence, and approximate truth, as well as ‘the challenge from history’ familiar to philosophers of science.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.025
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhilosophy and History of ScienceFrench-language works237,207