Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature on UFOs / UAPs has seen much discussion concerning the central ontological question: on the rational assumption that we are dealing with something objectively real (i.e., not just the product of delusion or misperception or deception etc.), what are we dealing with? A basic taxonomy of options can readily be constructed, with the initial division consisting of a split between naturalist theories (i.e., theories compatible with metaphysical naturalism) and non-naturalist theories (i.e., theories incompatible with metaphysical naturalism). Naturalist theories held sway within early ufology, especially the extraterrestrial hypothesis. However, dissenting non-naturalist voices gradually gained ground from the late 1960s onward, and today a variety of such theories receives sustained discussion. These utilize ideas derived from major world religions, from the history of philosophy, and even from recent developments in analytic metaphysics and philosophy of religion. My principal aim in this short paper is to provide an accessible overview and preliminary assessment of one important non-naturalist theory of UAP ontology: animism.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".