Fletcher, Samuel CKnobe, JoshuaWheeler, GregoryWoodcock, Brian A2021-11-082021-11-082021-11-08https://hdl.handle.net/11299/225224The two primary data CSV files are the anonymized, master data set for analysis, and another deriving from it used for the calculation of interrater reliabilities. There is also a Python notebook file, with an html version, used to create the latter from the former. Finally, there is an R notebook with all the statistical analyses using the data sets, and a PDF describing in detail the procedure by which all these were generated, including the generation of various intermediate files (which are not included here). More details can be found in the README file.This data set contains bibliographic entries for articles published in the journal Philosophical Studies in the years 1999, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2017, and 2019, with classifications of which articles used formal methods. Those that did were further classified by what formal methods they used, the level of sophistication of those methods, and the subdiscipline(s) of philosophy to which they belong. The purpose of the data collection was to explore any trends in the use of formal methods over the time period indicated. The potential value of the data set for meeting this purpose lies in its potential to be representative of analytic Anglophone philosophy during the time period indicated. The data is now released because the study for which is was collected has concluded.Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United Stateshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/Formal methods in philosophyDigital humanitiesMetaphilosophyPhilosophical StudiesLogicProbabilityDatasethttps://doi.org/10.13020/ywpr-r202