English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

were necessary for successful science. We begin with an unusual or puzzling phenomenon (C) and try to hypothesise something (A), which would account for the existence of the phenomenon, this is abduction. Then, second, we explore the consequences of A. If A is in fact the case, what other consequences would follow that we might be able to observe or test? This is deduction. Finally, we try and observe whether these consequences do in fact happen, which would thus confirm our explanation. This is a form of induction. This mode of reasoning is also at the heart of CR, which adopts an approach to causality that is known as ‘generative causality’. In distinction to positivism or empiricism, which adopts the impoverished ‘Humean version of causality as nothing more than a constant conjunction of events’, CR holds that there is a stratified external reality in which the occurrences and events we experience (the ‘actual’) are the result of, or generated by, the interaction of underlying structures and mechanisms (the ‘real’). These mechanisms may be physical, social or conceptual, and they may be observable or unobservable. CR’s methodology, which involves retroduction, is very much along the lines of Peirce’s abduction (Hartwig, 2007, p 195):

Note on effects of joint replenishment and channel coordination for managing multiple deteriorating products in a supply chain