MediaWiki API result

{
    "batchcomplete": "",
    "continue": {
        "gapcontinue": "Reaction_of_the_Absorber_as_the_Mechanism_of_Radiative_Damping",
        "continue": "gapcontinue||"
    },
    "query": {
        "pages": {
            "4575": {
                "pageid": 4575,
                "ns": 0,
                "title": "Re-orienting Discussions of Scientific Explanation: A Functional Perspective",
                "revisions": [
                    {
                        "contentformat": "text/x-wiki",
                        "contentmodel": "wikitext",
                        "*": "{{Summary\n|title=Re-orienting Discussions of Scientific Explanation: A Functional Perspective\n|authors=Woody, A.I.\n|url=http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0039368115000400/1-s2.0-S0039368115000400-main.pdf?_tid=fff34754-0994-11e5-b24f-00000aab0f02&acdnat=1433297305_1904374d246f1d0e697e65ff2381c43f\n|summary=Woody starts his argument about explanation in science with three questions: (1) adequacy conditions for individual scientific explanation, (2) the way explanatory power is justified as a theoretical virtue, and (3) main role of explanation in science. The first question should be solved first.\n\nMost discussions occurred in field are focused on the first question, explanans-explanandum relation. Woody takes an example of Hempel and points out the limitation of it which is not clear why other people have followed the Hempel\u2019s. He thinks that Hempel\u2019s way can give scientific warrant to explanation. \n\nHe also uses Hempel\u2019s assertions about functional analysis which describe that \u201cfunctional analysis seeks to understand a behavior pattern or a socio-cultural institution\u201d. He thinks that the role of explanation is helping people to understand the world around us involving a request for information and a response and assuming a functional perspective which is enable to understand. Explanation should be shared, arbitrated, or generated among most members of a given scientific discipline or sub-discipline which are largely delineated by the explanation patterns. Through the example of gas law, the author would like to say that the functional perspective provides a better platform for recognizing the law\u2019s explanatory power. And the law provides scaffolding for reasoning about certain phenomenon, and it enables the theoretical unification of macro and micro level descriptions as well as grounds our understanding of the core concepts.       \n\nAlthough adopting the functional perspective has limitation such as case that is hard to contain generalization and framework or one which has possibility that framework cannot accommodate the case, it still has several virtues. Functional perspective based on multiple philosophical analyses has logic, can capture the core concept and generalized it, suggests model-based larger story, salvages significant insights from the existing philosophical literature, connects with explanation with understanding, and turns our attention to issues to issues of social epistemology with knowledge of modern science.\n \nIn sum, the answers of the questions are following: (1) The functionality of explanatory discourse is needed for scientific explanation, (2) and (3) the reasons why we prefer explanatory scientific theories are because explanation is a main goal of science, and because the explanation theories are indicative of truth.    \n\n|journal=Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 1, 9\n|pub_date=2015\n}}"
                    }
                ]
            },
            "5276": {
                "pageid": 5276,
                "ns": 0,
                "title": "ReScience C: A Journal for Reproducible Replications in Computational Science",
                "revisions": [
                    {
                        "contentformat": "text/x-wiki",
                        "contentmodel": "wikitext",
                        "*": "{{Summary\n|title=ReScience C: A Journal for Reproducible Replications in Computational Science\n|authors=Nicolas P. Rougier, Konrad Hinsen\n|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23987-9_14\n|summary=The author identifies some cases where the act of trying to replicate a study brought up new research questions (author's citations 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12). Most existing journals do not accept replication results because they prioritize originality. Therefore, the author co-founded [http://rescience.github.io/ ReScience C] ReScience C, a journal which publishes replications of computational work. \nSee also [[Sustainable computational science: the ReScience initiative]], which was written at the launch of ReScience C. In ReScience C, the reviews are conducted openly on GitHub; accepted experiments are archived in Zenodo. The GitHub PR process is somewhat limiting, since it is not automated yet, but overall a better platform for communicatoin than traditional journals. In practice, Rescience C reviews and authors have been polite., however a failed replication can be \"equivalent to publicly accusing the authors of the target work of having made a mistake, which is a potential source of conflict.\" The authors consider a new model, where replicability is attempted pre-publication, and the work is published with its replicability study. A new journal, ReScience X, will focus on replicability for physical (not computational) experiments.\n\n'''Terminoligy note:''' ''Reproducible'' means that the work results can be exactly reproduced, using the exact same code. ''Replicable'' means that main results can be approximately recreated by conceptually equivalent software. ''Reproducible replication'' is a replication experiment (new code written from the high-level description) that is reproducible (code and data are available).\n|journal=International Workshop on Reproducible Research in Pattern Recognition\n|pub_date=2019/06/29\n|doi=10.1007/978-3-030-23987-9_14\n|subject=Computer Science\n}}"
                    }
                ]
            }
        }
    }
}