Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his discussion of Habermas, Foucault, and rhetoric, Kendall Phillips aims to reconstruct a debate between Jürgen Habermas and Michel Foucault that never materialized.The debate was to take Kant's essay "What Is Enlightenment?" as its point of departure.Given this starting point, one would expect the debate to turn on differing conceptions of public reason and the public sphere.Phillips, however, identifies the notion of comprehensibility as the deeper point at issue.Whereas Habermas predicates his discourse theory-and consequently, his normative model of undistorted communication in the public sphere-on the assumption of mutual comprehensibility among participants, Foucault's "ontology of the present" aims to upset just this assumption.Behind Foucault's strategy lies the belief that enlightenment constitutes a never-completed process calling for ongoing, modest experiments in transgression that push the boundaries of established modes of thought and action.Habermas's normative model, by contrast, suggests the possibility of completion-an "enlightened age" that would be secured through a properly structured and comprehensible public sphere.Phillips then goes on, finally, to propose rhetoric as the area in which one might find a way to mediate these two opposed conceptions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.048 | 0.069 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
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".