MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312039558 · doi:10.1017/s1369415422000541

Ido Geiger, Kant and the Claims of the Empirical World: A Transcendental Reading of the Critique of the Power of Judgment Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022 Pp. xiv + 225 ISBN 9781108834261 (hbk) £75.00

2022· article· en· W4312039558 on OpenAlexaff
Nabeel Hamid

Bibliographic record

VenueKantian Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PhilosophyTranscendental numberGeiger counterPower (physics)TheologyEpistemologyPhysicsQuantum mechanicsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ido Geiger, Kant and the Claims of the Empirical World: A Transcendental Reading of the Critique of the Power of Judgment Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022 Pp. xiv + 225 ISBN 9781108834261 (hbk) £75.00 - Volume 28 Issue 1

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKantian ReviewSame topicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207