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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The published compilation of correspondence between Hans Albert and Karl Popper is observed in its historical context and examined for its possible contribution to the understanding of their philosophy and Popper’s theory of translation (this contribution, however, proved to be small). The main results achieved were: 1) The writing of Albert’s main work, Treatise on Critical Reason, was made possible in the second half of 1967 by the failure of his other project (a collection of translations of texts by critical rationalists). 2) The rhetoric of the Treatise was influenced by Albert’s then close relationship with Paul Feyerabend. 3) Albert places the therapeutic-educational mission of his work (the fight against irrationalism and the offer of a more reasonable alternative) above the search for truth. 4) From the point of view of care for the community, Albert was the most successful philosopher of the 20th century. 5) The main credit for this remarkable success goes to the remarkable asymmetrical synergy of the Albert – Popper collaboration, the more precise description of which this article is dedicated to.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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 it