Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Knowledge representation is one way to exploit expertise in a given domain by logical means. But, what kind of knowledge does one acquire from an inference (or inference on a query result over a knowledge base)? Such a question may appear awkward since the answer seems so obvious: from an inference, one simply acquires knowledge. This is undoubtedly the case when only one type of knowledge (for instance, expert knowledge) is involved in an inference. What if several types of knowledge are involved? What type of knowledge can one deduce from a plurality of knowledge types? I claim that reasoning with different knowledge concepts requires a fine-grained representation of knowledge in which every knowledge type finds a singular expression in order to avoid some epistemic equivocity associated with a coarse-grained representation of knowledge. In the first part of the paper, I revisit the Muddy Children Puzzle, which usually serves to illustrate common knowledge in dynamic epistemic logic. I try to show that this problem also shows some sort of epistemic equivocity between concepts of knowledge and, consequently, that the problem calls for some epistemological refinements concerning the representation of the types of knowledge at play in an inference. In the second part, I address this issue from a semantic point of view, and I develop a fragment of epistemic logic capable of providing a solution to the problem of epistemic equivocity.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".