Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Fifty years ago, Roland Hall published his survey, Fifty Years of Hume Scholarship , for the years 1925 to 1975. In it, he remarked on the 1975 founding of Hume Studies , and he expressed the hope that "as published work on this great philosopher becomes increasing precise, accurate, and philosophically rewarding, he may for the first time since the eighteenth century have an important influence on the development of philosophy." This essay for the 50th anniversary issue of Hume Studies briefly and selectively reviews the five decades of the journal to date as a reflection of developments in Hume studies more generally. For each decade, it describes an emerging interpretive debate, mentions some other new topics and trends, and lists some of the most significant new books. By way of conclusion, it compares present-day Hume scholarship with the state of Hume scholarship fifty years ago. In the course of doing so, it seeks to highlight a few of the many respects in which our understanding of the central aspects of Hume's thought has become, just as Hall hoped, more "precise, accurate, and philosophically rewarding" in ways that serve to justify his still-growing appreciation and influence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".