MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376861097 · doi:10.35920/arf.v14i2.603

Mental language and predication: Ockham and Abelard

2013· article· pt· W4376861097 on OpenAlex
Claude Panaccio

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

VenueAnalytica Revista de Filosofia · 2013
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uma das principais teses de meu livro Le discours intérieur. De Platon à Guillaume d'Ockham era a de que, estritamente falando, a ideia de linguagem mental tinha origem com Guilherme de Ockham, entre o fim da segunda e o início da terceira década do século XIV. Em um artigo recente, no entanto, Peter King defende que "Abelardo foi o autor da primeira teoria plenamente desenvolvida da linguagem mental na Idade Media". Neste artigo gostaria de responder à afirmação de King, e de indicar as diferenças extremamente significantes que há entre as posições de Abelardo e de Ockham sobre a linguagem mental. AbstractOne of the main tenets of my book Le discours intérieur. De Platon à Guillaume d'Ockham was that strictly speaking, the idea of mental language originated with William of Ockham in the late 1310s and early 1320s. In a recent paper, however, Peter King claims that "Abelard was the author of the first full-fledged theory of mental language in the Middle Ages". In this paper I would like to reply to King's claim, and to point out the very significant differences that exist between Abelard and Ockham on mental language.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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