Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional treatment of Spinoza’s substance and modes is in a two-category ontology, which can be called ‘category dualism’ or ‘substance-property dualism’ that construes two ontological categories, one of which is the more ontologically fundamental substance, res, subject or object, and other more superficial ones that inhere in, are predicated of, or ontologically depend on the former, traditionally coined as accidents, modes, or more neutrally, properties. The idiosyncrasy of substance-property dualism is to deny a part-whole structure of the relation between its two categories. This seems to be in accordance with Spinoza’s endorsement of substance and modes as the two categories of his ontology, where substance is the fundamental entity and the modes are ontologically dependent on it, as well as the indivisibility of substance into parts. Nevertheless, other scholars have conceived a priority monistic structure of this relationship, which takes substance and modes in a whole-part relationship. In this paper, I argue against category dualism by developing three original objections in favour of a category monistic along with the priority monistic reading.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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.
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".