MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409461422 · doi:10.1111/phib.12368

Temporal Passage in a Fragmented World

2025· article· en· W4409461422 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytic Philosophy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhilosophy and Theoretical Science
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Fragmentalism is a relatively recent and striking addition to the debate between tensed and tenseless theories of time. First introduced by Fine in “Tense and Reality,” it presents a rare instance of both a theoretically intriguing and novel theory of time. My aim is to consider if and in what sense fragmentalism can join its tensed compatriots in accounting for genuine temporal passage. There are three parts to my analysis of temporal passage in fragmentalism's fragmented world. I begin by defending fragmentalism against claims that it presents a hopelessly muddled conception of reality. With a coherent conceptual picture of the basics of fragmentalism in place, I turn to the passage of time and argue that fragmentalism provides an ill‐suited environment for the mind‐independent passage of time. I conclude that, although fragmentalism is not necessarily in itself an incoherent view, it lacks the advantages of orthodox A‐theoretic tensed accounts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.305 · 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