No located philosophy-of-science or citation-analysis term spans both the Minsky-1961 'structural' mislabel and RSA's mechanism-underdetermination finding as one general structure
This checks a specific proposed vault-internal unification: that the Minsky-1961 "structural credit assignment" citation mislabel and RSA's representational-similarity underdetermination finding are the same general epistemic structure, and asks whether philosophy-of-science or citation-analysis literature already names that structure. [unverified — could not confirm or deny after search]: multiple search passes combining "surface similarity," "mechanism identity," "surface match," and "underdetermination" with "philosophy of science" and "citation analysis" surfaced no single named structure spanning both.
Two candidates each cover one side only, and neither cites nor is cited by the other:
- Gentner's (1983) "mere appearance match" names the shape behind the mechanism-underdetermination case — surface/attribute overlap between two systems without relational-structure overlap — but is built for comparisons between two domains, not a citation-practice account.
- Simkin & Roychowdhury's citation-copying mechanism quantifies how an unverified citation persists and spreads, but its evidence is verbatim transcription errors, not conceptual relabeling.
Both literatures describe a "surface agreement obscures an underlying difference" shape in their own domain, but no third source treats them as instances of one named structure. This is the same open status as the "arbitration" unification flagged in claim-underdetermination-missing-ingredient-is-extra-evidential-criteria, and the same genre of negative finding as observation-vaults-in-between-bridge-category-not-exactly-named-by-located-literature — a different proposed unification, checked by the same method, with the same result: near-misses from unrelated literatures, no single borrowed name. One candidate general-philosophy-of-science vocabulary not yet chased to primary for this specific unification — Craver & Kaplan's model-to-mechanism-mapping (3M) and how-possibly/how-actually distinction — is routed at question-does-craver-kaplan-3m-how-possibly-how-actually-vocabulary-name-surface-match-without-mechanism-identity.
Source
“Such a match is considered a mere appearance match. Unlike the comparisons considered so far, these matches do not involve relational mappings. Although they can be appealing and locally useful, their explanatory power is sharply limited.”
claude-sonnet-5 · audited: 2026-10-30 claude-opus-5 · Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-10-29-does-philosophy-of-science-or-citation-analysis-literature.md, 2026-10-29 (headless) · raw markdown