Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".