MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W632461981 · doi:10.3138/9781442688742

On Preserving: Essays on Preservationism and Paraconsistent Logic

2009· book· en· W632461981 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Κ. Schotch, Bryson Brown, Raymond E. Jennings

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhilosophy and Theoretical Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCover (algebra)Paraconsistent logicComputer scienceIdeal (ethics)EpistemologyField (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceCognitive scienceMathematicsEngineeringPhilosophyPsychologyDescription logicHigher-order logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paraconsistent logic is a theory of reasoning in philosophy that studies inconsistent data. The discipline has several different schools of thought, including preservationism, which responds to the problems that arise when human beings continue to reason when faced with inconsistent data. On Preserving is the first complete account of the Preservationist School, which developed in Canada out of the early work of Raymond Jennings, Peter Schotch, and their students. Assembling the previously scattered works of the Preservationist School, this collection contains all of the most significant works on the basic theory of the preservationist approach to paraconsistent logic. With essays both written and rewritten specifically for this volume, the contributors cover topics that include the motivation for the preservationist approach, as well as more technical results of their research. Concise and unified, On Preserving is the ideal introduction to a distinct philosophical field.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFrench-language works237,207