Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an age in which the intellectual life of the West as expressed in its art, culture, spirituality, and philosophy identifies itself as incurably postmodern, it is perhaps wise to heed Charles Taylor's warning that “understanding modernity aright is an exercise in retrieval.” In order to cast our minds back to the seventeenth century when the modern period was born, the student of modernity must excavate through many layers of thought in the subsequent history of ideas; that is, dig through assumptions about the philosophical meaning of history, culture, and material forces that have long since hardened imperceptibly over time into fundamental ideological commitments. To rediscover modernity as it first appeared in the world brash and confident, it requires that in some respects we forget who we are, or perhaps whom we think we are. This study constitutes a modest effort to contribute to the enormous task of retrieving modernity by recovering an authentic understanding of John Locke's important role in its creation. We have tried to restore a sense of Locke's work as he intended it to be read; that is, as philosophical reflections upon the fundamental questions of human existence. Our analysis of Locke's mature writings reveals a bold and original thinker whose probing examination of the workings of the human mind and the manifold interpersonal relations characterizing social reality leads us to question many of the prevailing assumptions about this complex figure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.127 | 0.041 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".