MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408275911 · doi:10.1038/s41593-025-01881-x

What makes a theory of consciousness unscientific?

2025· article· en· W4408275911 on OpenAlexaff
Derek H. Arnold, Mark G. Baxter, Tristan A. Bekinschtein, Yoshua Bengio, James W. Bisley, Jacob Browning, Dean V. Buonomano, David Carmel, Marisa Carrasco, Peter Carruthers, Olivia Carter, Dorita H. F. Chang, Ian Charest, Mouslim Cherkaoui, Axel Cleeremans, Michael A. Cohen, Philip R. Corlett, Kalina Christoff, Cody A. Cushing, Beatrice de Gelder, Felipe De Brigard, Daniel C. Dennett, Nadine Dijkstra, Adrien Doerig, Paul E. Dux, Stephen M. Fleming, Keith Frankish, Chris Frith, Sarah Garfinkel, Melvyn A. Goodale, Jacqueline Gottlieb, Jake R. Hanson, Ran R. Hassin, Michael H. Herzog, Cecilia Heyes, Po‐Jang Hsieh, Shao‐Min Hung, Robert W. Kentridge, Tomas Knapen, Nikos Konstantinou, Konrad P. Körding, Timo L. Kvamme, Sze Chai Kwok, Renzo C. Lanfranco, Hakwan Lau, Joseph E. LeDoux, Alan Lee, Camilo Libedinsky, Matthew D. Lieberman, Ying-Tung Lin, Kayuet Liu, Maro G. Machizawa, Julio Martínez-Trujillo, Janet Metcalfe, Matthias Michel, Kenneth D. Miller, Partha P. Mitra, Dean Mobbs, Robert M. Mok, Jorge Morales, Myrto Mylopoulos, Brian Odegaard, Charles C.-F. Or, Adrian M. Owen, David Pereplyotchik, Franco Pestilli, Megan A. K. Peters, Ian Phillips, Rosanne L. Rademaker, Dobromir Rahnev, Geraint Rees, Dario L. Ringach, Adina L. Roskies, Daniela Schiller, Aaron Schurger, D. Samuel Schwarzkopf, R. B. Y. Scott, Aaron R. Seitz, Joshua Shepherd, Juha Silvanto, Heleen A. Slagter, Barry Smith, Guillermo Solovey, David Soto, Hugo J. Spiers, Timo Stein, Vincent Taschereau‐Dumouchel, Frank Tong, Peter U. Tse, Jonas Vibell, Sebastian Watzl, Taylor W. Webb, Josh Weisberg, Thalia Wheatley, Michał Wierzchoń, Martijn E. Wokke, Karen Yan, Michał Klincewicz, Tony Cheng, Michael Schmitz, Miguel Ángel Sebastián, Joel S. Snyder

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhilosophy and Theoretical Science
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecRobarts Clinical TrialsUniversité de MontréalWestern UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsciousnessNeuroscienceCognitive scienceNeuroscientistPsychologySystems neuroscienceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.045
Scholarly communication0.0070.020
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0100.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations33
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature NeuroscienceSame topicPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFrench-language works237,207