“Correlation is the Truth of all Existence,” or Interdisciplinarity as a Methodological Principle of Adequate Social Cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article demonstrates that interdisciplinarity is not only a characteristic of the modern stage of scientific knowledge, as it is usually stated. Nevertheless, it is a methodological expression of the ambiguous nature of knowledge about any social subject, which makes us consider it as a requirement for adequate social knowledge. This nature of knowledge about a social subject stems from the fact that every existing thing (including a social one), always, “by nature” in relations with other things, discovers that it is itself (“the truth of its existence”), only through this relationship, only through another thing, only in interaction with it. We can call this the nature of a thing; the way it exists. Moreover, if all the definitions of a thing, all knowledge about a thing that arises specifically, as a result of its various relationships with other things, are essential for its understanding and cannot be ignored when defining a thing. Then an adequate knowledge of such a thing (social things) will always be only its knowledge as the dialectical unity of many definitions. This implies that the external expression of this fact is interdisciplinarity as a methodological principle of adequate knowledge. That is, adequate knowledge of a thing (which is always multifaceted) is possible only through the interaction of the potential of separate, historically developed systems of concepts that correspond to these faces and form separate social disciplines, i.e. only as interdisciplinary knowledge.
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 | 0.035 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".