Del símbolo y de su objeto: Reflexiones en torno a la teoría de la conceptualización de Cassirer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A través del concepto de esquema elaborado en la Crítica de la razón pura, refinado posteriormente en la Crítica del juicio, Kant intentó dar respuesta al problema de la relación epistemológica entre símbolo y objeto. En su respuesta, Kant combinó tanto elementos del empirismo como del racionalismo de su tiempo de tal forma que su teoría del conocimiento quedó marcada por una dualidad irreducible entre actividad intelectual y sensorial. Tratando de superar esta dualidad, Cassirer -al igual que Piaget, aunque tomando un camino diferente- desarrolló una teoría genética a partir de una reformulación del concepto kantiano de esquema. El objetivo de este artículo es analizar la teoría genética de la conceptualización de Cassirer y ofrecer, al final, una breve comparación con la epistemología genética de Piaget. La fuente kantiana que nutre a ambos pensadores nos permite apreciar con mayor claridad el alcance del constructivismo kantiano y comprender mejor sus límites y posibilidades.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".