Epistemic Stances: Local vs. Global, Reducible vs. Irreducible
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses a gap in the scientonomic ontology by clarifying the notion of epistemic stance and articulating two orthogonal distinctions among epistemic stances: global vs. local, and reducible vs. irreducible. The paper first proposes cross-definitions of epistemic stance and epistemic element, completing the definitional loop among the basic scientonomic terms. It then introduces the distinction between global epistemic stances, understood as stances available to all epistemic agents transhistorically, and local epistemic stances, which are historically or agent specific. A second distinction is drawn between stances reducible to more fundamental stances (most notably theory acceptance) and those that are irreducible. These distinctions are illustrated through a classification of familiar scientonomic stances, such as theory acceptance, question acceptance, norm employment, and compatibility, as well as a discussion of such local stances as heresy, dogma, and scientificity. It then examines the conditions under which local epistemic stances become available to agents and deduces the local stance availability theorem, according to which the availability of a local stance depends on the derivability of permissibility or desirability norms from an agent’s mosaic. Finally, the dynamics of taking stances reducible to theory acceptance is explained by means of a theorem deduced from the law of theory acceptance. Several implications for future theoretical and observational scientonomic research are identified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it