Bibliographic record
Abstract
plato idealized the philosopher as a solitary contemplator of the truth, but his own practice, and the practice of every philosopher who has succeeded him, puts paid to that myth.Philosophy presupposes content, and content presupposes the existence of a world outside the thinker and the thoughts of others about that world.Hence, while one must take responsibility for the contributions to philosophical inquiry and criticism that one tries to make, one also incurs innumerable debts in the struggle to make one's case.These debts are in the first place general, to those who make intellectual work possible.I must, therefore, first thank my family and my partner, Josephine, without whose support I would not be where I am today.I must also thank the Office of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Science for its support.As well, my colleagues in the Philosophy Department at the University of Windsor have been endlessly supportive of my work over the past nine years.Particular debts are also incurred along the way of writing and refining a book.In this regard I would like to thank my research assistants over the past three years Heather Greig, Petr Carvalho, and Holly Sweet, who patiently tracked down articles and references.Particular thanks are also owed to my colleague Deborah Cook, whose expertise, particularly with regard to Habermas, was essential in developing my own thinking.Evan Simpson of Memorial University read aspects of the argument about needs in a different permutation, and his comments sharpened my own thinking.Discussions with Alison Assiter of the University of the West of England also opened my eyes to certain tensions in my understanding of needs.Victor Willis, of the Parkdale Area Recreation Centre, graciously gave his time to discuss his centre's housing project.The anonymous readers chosen by McGill-Queen's Press pro-
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.573 | 0.358 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".