MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401175858 · doi:10.1163/15700593-02402005

Definition as Situated Interpretational Vector

2024· article· en· W4401175858 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Engler, Mark Q. Gardiner

Bibliographic record

VenueAries · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyMetaphorSituatedMeaning (existential)DisciplineContext (archaeology)Interpretation (philosophy)SociologyPoint (geometry)DialecticPhilosophySocial scienceComputer scienceLinguisticsHistoryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This short piece responds to the sixteen commentaries included in this special issue of Aries , each of which addressed aspects of our target article, ‘(Re)defining Esotericism: Fluid Definitions, Property Clusters and the Cross-Cultural Debate’. We reaffirm our approach with a metaphor: defining is a process of guiding interpretation in a certain direction from a certain starting point; and academic disciplines, like the study of esotericism, provide especially useful contexts for situating such semantic vectors. The response addresses issues of disciplinary context, the nature of consensus and philosophical views of meaning.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAriesSame topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207