Los límites de la transparencia. Taylor sobre Hegel en contexto
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En su obra dedicada al estudio de Hegel (1975), el filósofo canadiense Charles Taylor establece una estrecha relación entre los modos de argumentación y el propósito del filósofo de Jena y pensadores contemporáneos como Heidegger, Wittgenstein y Merleau-Ponty. Según Taylor, las obras de estos filósofos son cruciales para escapar del hechizo queha impuesto la epistemología moderna. A pesar de las similitudes, la convergencia está limitada por el expresionismo racionalista de la metafísica hegeliana, irreconciliable con la crítica anti-epistemológica que caracteriza a estos otros autores.--- English version: In his work devoted to the study of Hegel (1975), the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor establishes a close relationship between the modes of argumentation and the aims of the philosopher from Jena and of contemporary thinkers such as Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Merleau-Ponty. According to Taylor, the works of these philosophers are crucial for escaping the spell imposed by modern epistemology. Despite the similarities, this convergence is limited by the rationalist expressivism of Hegelian metaphysics, which is irreconcilable with the anti-epistemological critique that characterizes these other authors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it