MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404477510 · doi:10.1080/13642529.2024.2429336

How not to construe strong constructivism in philosophy of history

2024· article· en· W4404477510 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eugen Zeleňák

Bibliographic record

VenueRethinking History · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, History, and Historiography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAV
KeywordsConstructivism (international relations)EpistemologyPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last couple of years, several interesting books which formulate a realist approach to history appeared. Their authors, Tor Egil Førland, Branko Mitrović and Adam Timmins, are very critical of what they conceive as a widespread constructivist tendency in philosophy of history and they argue for realist accounts instead. In my text, I focus specifically on the views of Timmins. After briefly introducing some of the key points presented in his book I explore constructivist understanding he opposes and some of the tenets of his realist understanding of history. I dispute his claim that constructivists maintain the past does not exist and I argue that his examination of one version of constructivism, irrealism defended by Paul Roth, is incorrect.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.165 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRethinking HistorySame topicPhilosophy, History, and HistoriographyFrench-language works237,207