Bibliographic record
Abstract
When theorists are engaged in the study of attention, they should not ask questions about “attention” simpliciter. They should instead always specify whether perceptual attention or what William James called “intellectual attention” is under discussion. James distinguished between the two varieties of attention with reference to their objects. He said that perceptual attention can be directed at “sensorial objects”, by which he means “object that an agent is perceiving, or could be perceiving”, and that intellectual attention can be directed at “ideal or represented objects” (James 1890 p. 416). In this dissertation, I develop a sufficient condition for intellectual attention and put my sufficient condition to two philosophical uses. On my view, using information from a personal level cognitive representation of that object to guide the performance of some primary task is sufficient for intellectual attention to that object. My sufficient condition is motivated by the practice of scientists studying intellectual attention and is compatible with a pluralistic approach to the metaphysics of attention. I use this sufficient condition to argue that intellectual attention can alter cognitive consciousness, and to argue that intellectual attention is required to comprehend some singular terms.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".