Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Pierce’s pragmatism, we get an account of true belief in terms of the beliefs accepted at the end of inquiry. In James’s version, we get an account of true belief in terms of beliefs that are pragmatically useful. In Dewey’s version, we get the suggestion that true beliefs are those that enjoy warranted assertability within some form of inquiry. And in Brandom’s neo-pragmatism, we see a theory of meaning in terms of inferential roles. I venture that what unites these as versions of pragmatism is a negative thesis that they share: truth and meaning are not fundamentally understood in terms of accurate representation and correspondence with reality. Enter Sepielli. In Pragmatist Quietism Sepielli focuses less on truth and meaning and more on inquiry and debate. He says that inquiries and debates do not, or should not, aim at representational accuracy; instead, they aim at, or should aim at, (other) values. In one formulation, he says that one is a pragmatist insofar as one endeavours to guide one’s inquiry and belief-forming practices by evaluative considerations, rather than guiding them on so-called truthy considerations (2022: 10). In another formulation, one is a pragmatist insofar as one ultimately justifies the practices of inquiry by how well those practices conduce to value (110).
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 | 0.042 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".