Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the last chapter was devoted to highlighting the problems facing the contemporary Linnaean system. Those problems fall into two camps: theoretical and pragmatic. On the theoretical side, the original assumptions underlying the Linnaean system – essentialism, creationism, and Linnaeus's sexual system – have been rejected. The Linnaean categories themselves correspond to little if anything in nature; and their number is insufficient for representing life's diversity. On the pragmatic side, the Linnaean rules of nomenclature are sources of instability and ambiguity. Furthermore, they saddle biologists with the task of assigning ontologically vacuous and misleading ranks to taxa. Given the theoretical and pragmatic problems facing the Linnaean system, should biologists continue using that system? The problems outlined in the previous chapter are sufficiently pressing that we should at least study the feasibility of replacing the Linnaean system with an alternative. However, this is no small task, nor should it be done lightly. The Linnaean system is firmly entrenched in biology as well as popular culture. Critics of the Linnaean system must build a persuasive case for rejecting that system. They must develop viable alternatives and show that at least one of those alternatives faces fewer problems than the Linnaean system. But that is not enough. Given the pervasiveness of the Linnaean system, critics of that system need to provide more than theoretical reasons for adopting an alternative system. They need to show that switching to an alternative system is practically feasible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".