MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116797904 · doi:10.22329/il.v45i4.9675

Generalizations in Analogical Argument

2025· article· en· W7116797904 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wensheng Zhu, Huaxin Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueInformal Logic · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsGeneralizationArgument (complex analysis)Analogical reasoningContext (archaeology)Similarity (geometry)Analogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a generalization-centered framework for analyzing analogical arguments. By examining how analogical generalization is treated across various research paradigms, it highlights its role in modeling both similarity and relevance. Unlike deductive or inductive generalizations, analogical generalization is empirical, hypothetical, and context-sensitive, underscoring the sui generis nature of analogical arguments. Building on this foundation, the paper extends the classical scheme and introduces a set of critical questions anchored in generalization. A detailed case study illustrates the framework’s practical value in identifying argument structure, modeling context sensitivity, and assessing the cogency of analogical arguments.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformal LogicSame topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207