MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7067954347

Non-referring Concepts. Technical Report 2003-03

2003· other· en· W7067954347 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · 2003
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrame (networking)Process (computing)Circumstantial evidencePoint (geometry)PretextStaring
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-referring concepts are mental representations of nonexistent things like
\ndragons and time machines. Non-referring words are the words that express those
\nconcepts. In reference-based approaches to formal semantics, there is a well-known
\npuzzle about how non-referring words and concepts get their meanings. The default
\nsolution is that they are special cases, with a different semantic structure from their
\nreferring counterparts. Despite over a century of debate in formal semantics, the issue of
\nnon-reference has, until now, been ignored in the psychological literature on concepts.
\nBut it is not obvious in advance what the psychological structure and processing of nonreferring
\nconcepts will be like. Furthermore, experimental evidence about non-referring
\nconcepts can help resolve issues fundamental to both semantics and psychology, such as
\nthe nature of meaning, the nature of concepts, and the debate over representational
\nexternalism.
\nI used the methods of experimental psychology to provide the first empirical test
\nof the claim that non-referring concepts are a special kind of concept. I found that nonreferring
\nconcepts have a very similar structure to referring concepts. This finding
\nsuggests that many popular versions of reference-based semantics are flawed, perhaps
\nfatally. I also found that non-referring concepts take measurably longer to process than
\nreferring concepts. I argue that the best way of reconciling the second result with the first
\nis to make a distinction between the knowledge that is constitutive of a concept and the
\nknowledge that is external to it. Non-referring concepts are processed more cautiously
\nbecause we know that their referents do not exist – a fact that is about the world rather
\nthan the concept itself. This distinction is consistent with the apparently contradictory
\nevidence that motivates “Theory Theory” accounts of conceptual structure on one hand,
\nand similarity-based accounts such as prototype and exemplar theories on the other.
\nThis dissertation concerns the following topic areas: cognitive psychology,
\ncognitive science, concepts, empty names, externalism, internalism, mental
\nrepresentation, nonexistent objects, non-referring concepts, philosophy of language,
\nphilosophy of mind, prototypes, reference, semantics, similarity, and Theory Theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.165 · 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