The Blackwell guide to Descartes' Meditations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notes on Contributors. References to Descartes' Works. Introduction. Stephen Gaukroger. 1. The Meditations and the Objections and Replies: Roger Ariew (University of South Florida, Tampa). 2. Descartes and skepticism: Charles Larmore (University of Chicago). 3. The cogito and foundations of knowledge: Edwin Curley (University of Michigan). 4. The nature of the mind: Marleen Rozemond (University of Toronto). 5. The doctrine of substance: Jorge Secada (University of Virginia). 6. The doctrine of ideas: Steven Nadler (University of Wisconsin). 7. Proofs for the existence of God: Lawrence Nolan (California State University) and Alan Nelson (University of California - Irvine). 8. The Cartesian circle: Gary Hatfield (University of Pennsylvania). 9. Judgement and will: Michael Della Rocca (Yale University). 10. Descartes' proof of the existence of matter: Desmond Clarke (University College Cork). 11. The mind-body relation: John Cottingham (Reading University). 12. Seventeenth-century responses to the Meditations: Tad Schmaltz (Duke University). Appendix: Descartes' Metaphysical Meditations, trans. William Molyneux (1680). References. Index
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.132 | 0.089 |
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".