Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mereological entities often seem to violate 'ordinary' ideas of what a concrete object can be like, behaving more like sets than like Aristotelian substances.However, the mereological notions of 'part', 'composition', and 'sum' or 'fusion' appear to find concrete realisation in the actual semantics of mass nouns.Quine notes that 'any sum of parts which are water is water'; and the wine from a single barrel can be distributed around the globe without affecting its identity.Is there here, as some have claimed, a 'natural' or 'innocent' form of mereology?The claim rests on the assumption that what a mass noun such as 'wine' denotes -the wine from a single barrel , for example -is indeed a unit of a special type, the sum or fusion of its many 'parts'.The assumption is, however, open to question on semantic grounds.I. Innocence, guilt, and the utterance of Quine 1.0 Mereology.Mereologists posit a variety of contentious principles of composition, whereby diverse objects -wholes, 'fusions' or 'sums', analogous to sets but without a membership relation -may be constructed on the basis of specified ranges of objects, abstract or concrete, assigned the roles of 'parts', parthood in this context being akin to set-theoretical inclusion.The question of whether, in any particular axiomatized system, the definitions can be somehow plausibly mapped into any natural-language understandings of 'object', 'whole' and 'part' is a further question, as is the question of whether there ('really') are objects, recognisable independently of the mereological system, which actually satisfy its axioms.Naturally, the mereologist is free to deny that her favoured system is contentious; she may urge that fusions of the kind contrived
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".