MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118551792 · doi:10.1353/rss.2025.a979300

A Neo-Russellian Defence of Knowledge as Justified True Belief

2025· article· en· W7118551792 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gregory Landini

Bibliographic record

VenueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseConjunction (astronomy)Outcome (game theory)Carry (investment)Belief revisionFalse accusation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Accepting the Theaetetus definition of knowledge as fully justified true belief, Russell offered cases designed to reveal that true belief is not sufficient for knowledge. A belief mustn't be obtained via good reasoning from a false premise— even if the false premise is justified . Gettier cases raised suspicion that a fourth condition beyond justification is required. No adequate fourth condition has been found. This paper offers a neo-Russellian solution. The premises used in good reasoning must themselves carry over, so that what is justified is a conjunction of the premises together with the outcome of the reasoning. For example, justification that p does not entail justification of the disjunction p or q . It justifies the conjunction: p and ( p or q ). If p is false, the conjunction does not satisfy the truth-condition of the Theaetetus definition. This solution relies on Russell's insights to determine which premises relevantly carry over, and to expose the mirage that presents justification as if it distributes over conjunction.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.049
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.325
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell StudiesSame topicEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsFrench-language works237,207