Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many scholars hold that Leibniz's monads are not located in space at all, and some attribute situations to simple substances directly. A more nuanced position is that monads have a situation only indirectly, namely through the situation of their bodies. It has been objected, however, that this intermediate position is untenable since it involves a viciously circular argument. Leibniz is clear that the situation is the basis for the extension. But if a substance is situated only through its own (extended) body, then the situation would appear to presuppose the extension of the body. Thus extension presupposes situation, but the situation would presuppose extension. In this paper (1) we present textual evidence that Leibniz did indeed hold that monads are situated via their own bodies; (2) we suggest that, even if what is properly speaking situated are (extended) bodies, there is no circularity in holding that the extension of a body results from the mutual situations of its parts: a non-vicious infinite regress of explanations in terms of extended parts is possible; and (3) we defend this solution against a possible objection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".