Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bibliografía Boyle, M. (2009), “Active Belief”, en: Hunter, D. (2009), Belief and Agency, Calgary: University of Calgary Press. —. (2011a), “‘Making up Your Mind’ and the Activity of Reason”, Philosphers’ Imprint, Vol. 11, Nº 17. —. (2011b), “Transparent Self-Knowledge”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 85:1, 2011, pp. 223-241. Cassam, Q. (2014), Self-Knowledge for Humans, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dennett, D. (1991), La actitud intencional, Barcelona: Gedisa. —. (1995), La conciencia explicada, Barcelona: Paidós. Evans, G. (1982), The Varities of Reference, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kant, I. (1978), Crítica de la Razón Pura, Madrid: Alfaguara. Kitcher, P. (2011), Kant’s Thinker, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lawler, D. y J. Vega (2016), “La autoridad de la primera persona y la estrategia de la autoría”, en: Pérez, D. y R. Ibarlucía (comps.) (2016), Hechos y valores en filosofía teórica, filosofía práctica y filosofía del arte, Buenos Aires: CIF/SADAF. Locke, J. (1956), Ensayo sobre el entendimiento humano, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Moran, R. (2001), Authority and Estrangement, Princeton: Princeton University Press. —. (2003), “Respones to O´Brien and Shoemaker”, en: European Journal of Philosophy, 11 (3), pp. 402-419. —. (2012), “Self-knowledge, ‘Transparency’, and the Forms of Activity”, en: Smithies, D. y D. Stoljar (2012), Introspection and Consciousness, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nagel, T. (1981), “¿Qué se siente ser murciélago?”, en: Nagel, T. (1981), La muerte en cuestión. Ensayos sobre la vida humana, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Rorty, R. (1989), La filosofía y el espejo de la naturaleza, Madrid: Cátedra. Russell, B. A. W. (1940), An Enquiry into Meaning and Truth, London: George Allen and Unwin. Ryle, G. (2005), El concepto de lo mental, Barcelona: Paidós. Shoemaker, S. (1996), The First-Person Perspective and Other Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (2003), Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Madrid: Tecnos.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.503 | 0.028 |
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".