Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Proof of Concept Research (PoCR) is a prevalent facet of scientific inquiry, yet its epistemic features remain poorly understood. While novelty has been highlighted as a key characteristic, projectability—understood as the likelihood of being applicable to a broader range of contexts—is another. This study endeavours to construct a formal model that elucidates the implicit ampliative reasoning inherent in PoCR. Our model hinges on probability assumptions for target objects to simultaneously exhibit three properties: one that is a defining characteristic of these target objects; a second that is desired of them and whose demonstration is the empirical aim of PoCR; and a third that is promised in the background. Depending on assumptions about when these properties jointly obtain, we delineate paradigmatic, alternative, and tangential modes of reasoning. This classification and associated decision tree unveil distinct argumentative strategies that, despite not being deductively valid, may be employed to motivate PoCR and justify subsequent inferences upon successful proof of concept demonstration. The model and decision tree together provide a framework with which to better understand the general structure of widely used inferences in PoCR, and with which researchers and evaluators can more precisely design and assess PoCR projects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".