| Title |
Structural representations: causally relevant and different from detectors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology & Philosophy, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10539-017-9562-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paweł Gładziejewski, Marcin Miłkowski |
| Abstract |
This paper centers around the notion that internal, mental representations are grounded in structural similarity, i.e., that they are so-called S-representations. We show how S-representations may be causally relevant and argue that they are distinct from mere detectors. First, using the neomechanist theory of explanation and the interventionist account of causal relevance, we provide a precise interpretation of the claim that in S-representations, structural similarity serves as a "fuel of success", i.e., a relation that is exploitable for the representation using system. Then, we discuss crucial differences between S-representations and indicators or detectors, showing that-contrary to claims made in the literature-there is an important theoretical distinction to be drawn between the two. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 40% |
| Poland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 23 | 45% |
| Psychology | 6 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,202,675
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Biology & Philosophy
#307
of 663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,239
of 420,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology & Philosophy
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 663 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.