MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1586953704 · doi:10.18046/recs.i9.1201

Gadamer y Collingwood sobre la distancia temporal y la comprensión

2012· article· en· W1586953704 on OpenAlexaff
Chinatsu Kobayashi, Mathieu Marion

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista CS · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the authors explore an intuitive model of time worked through in Gadamer’s hermeneutics, but which is rejected by Collingwood. To illustrate this, the authors examine the responses of both to the problem of transposition, upon which Dilthey’s philosophy is purportedly founded. The authors then discuss the underlying notions of time, demonstrating that Ricoeur had a greater appreciation of the issue, given his observation that Collingwood moves parallel to Heidegger’s critique of “vulgar time” to a certain extent, albeit with an entirely different result. In addition, the authors highlight the importance of Collingwood’s thinking to his notion of “incapsulation”.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista CSSame topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207