MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125403402 · doi:10.7202/1122718ar

Eric Reid Lindstrom, 'Jane Austen and Other Minds: Ordinary Language Philosophy in Literary Fiction'

2025· article· en· W7125403402 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenneth L. Brewer

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophy in Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicUmberto Eco and Semiotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrdinary language philosophyPhilosophy of languageContemporary philosophyModern philosophyWestern philosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eric Reid Lindstrom, 'Jane Austen and Other Minds: Ordinary Language Philosophy in Literary Fiction'. Un article de la revue Philosophy in Review (Volume 45, numéro 4, novembre 2025, p. 1-38) diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.013
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.007

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venuePhilosophy in ReviewSame topicUmberto Eco and SemioticsFrench-language works237,207