Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A central topic of debate in the aftermath of Wolff’s German Metaphysics was the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). While it might be tempting to divide the discussion into the Wolffian defenders of the principle and its anti-Wolffian detractors, things are not quite so straightforward. The significance of a proof of the PSR for Wolff himself has long been grossly exaggerated as Wolff’s attempts are not reflective of his distinctive philosophical rationalism. Moreover, even as Wolff’s most dogged opponents contested the unrestricted use of the principle in metaphysics, they accepted that the PSR held with respect to certain domains of beings. Moreover, Wolff’s critics went as far as to number the PSR among the highest principles of human cognition. Significantly, it is in its form as an undemonstrated and unlimited principle of cognition that the PSR serves Wolff’s critics as an indispensable foundation for their most distinctive doctrines.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".