MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414995708 · doi:10.48106/dial.v76.i2

The Metaphysics of Relational States

2022· paratext· en· W4414995708 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuedialectica · 2022
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical Ethics and Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStanford Bio-XUniversity of CambridgeLeverhulme TrustHarvard UniversityUniversity of OxfordMcMaster University
KeywordsMetaphysicsStatus quoRelational viewProposition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A many-faceted beast, the metaphysics of relations can be approached from many angles.One could begin with the various ways in which relational states are expressed in natural language.If a more historical treatment is wanted, one could begin with Plato, Aristotle, or Leibniz. 1 In the following, I will approach the topic by first drawing on Russell's Principles of Mathematics (1903) (still a natural-enough starting point), and then turn to a discussion mainly of positionalism.The closing section contains an overview of the six contributions to this Special Issue.P R O O F 164 Jan Plate D2. 'Loves' expresses a relation distinct from the one expressed by 16 'is loved by'.17 But this last statement might give rise to linguistic qualms; for, given that 'is 18 loved by' is not even a complete phrase, it does not look like an appropriate 19 target for the attribution of a semantic value.We can get around this by 20 adopting the notational expedient of 𝜆-expressions.Instead of 'loves' and 'is 21 loved by', we might speak of '𝜆𝑥, 𝑦 (𝑥 loves 𝑦)' and '𝜆𝑥, 𝑦 (𝑥 is loved by 𝑦)', and 22 lay down a semantics of 𝜆-expressions under which ⌜𝜆𝑥, 𝑦 (𝑥 𝜑s 𝑦)⌝ denotes 23 whatever dyadic relation is such that the instantiation of that relation by 24 any entities 𝑥 and 𝑦, in this order, is just the state of affairs that 𝑥 𝜑s 𝑦. 2 25 Under such a semantics, '𝜆𝑥, 𝑦 (𝑥 loves 𝑦)' denotes the dyadic relation whose 26 instantiation by any entities 𝑥 and 𝑦 (in this order) is the state of affairs that 27 𝑥 loves 𝑦.Analogously for '𝜆𝑥, 𝑦 (𝑥 is loved by 𝑦)', which may also be said to 28 denote the converse of 𝜆𝑥, 𝑦 (𝑥 loves 𝑦).29 Using 𝜆-expressions as names for relations, (D2) becomes: 30 D2 ′ .The relation 𝜆𝑥, 𝑦 (𝑥 loves 𝑦) is distinct from 𝜆𝑥, 𝑦 (𝑥 is loved by 𝑦). 31 And this is hard to deny.As the argument is both straightforward and tedious, 32 I delegate it to a footnote.3 (D2) closely reflects what Bertrand Russell implies 33 From (1) and (2) we can conclude, by Leibniz's law, that 𝜆𝑥, 𝑦 (𝑥 loves 𝑦) is distinct from 𝜆𝑥, 𝑦 (𝑥 is loved by 𝑦).

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.030
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuedialecticaSame topicPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryFrench-language works237,207