Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An artefact is crafted for a function. Its function, according to many leading theories, is essential to it. If so, what an artefact is for is a ‘static’ aspect of what it is that is sourced in crafters’ authority. On the other hand, it seems an artefact may change what it is for: it may gain or lose a function, or its original function may evolve. If so, what an artefact is for is a ‘dynamic’ aspect of what it is that has its source in what users use an artefact for, even if it is not what it was crafted for. The dynamic aspect allows what the static aspect precludes: change in what an artefact is for. And so the static and dynamic aspects seem in conflict. This paper explores an approach that harmonizes them. It promises to accommodate our inclinations better than approaches favouring only one aspect. A broader implication is that the approach challenges the widespread assumption, shared by many friends and foes of essences alike, that essences are uniform.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".