MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005328289

The Psychological Implausibility of Naturalized Content. Technical Report 2001-05

2001· other· en· W7005328289 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · 2001
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101DysgeusiaDiafiltrationEmperipolesisLiquationDemotionTriacetin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conceptual Atomism (CA) is the view that psychological \nconcepts are atoms (no internal structure, no necessary \nrelations to other concepts). CA is a psychological/semantic \ntheory. I show that CA has become mixed up with a separate, \nmeta-semantic project that seeks to naturalize content, and \nthat this Naturalized Conceptual Atomism has ended up in the \nself-defeating position of positing non-atomic structures for a \nlarge number of concepts. The solution is to separate the two \nprojects again, and allow them to develop on their own.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0150.027
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.010

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University)French-language works237,207