Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article the author reads the German philosopher Karl-Otto Apel as a communication theorist. After a brief biographical introduction, the author examines five fields of significance pertinent to Apel’s thought and to the study of communication: First is Apel’s work on the so-called understanding and explanation controversy, or Erklaeren-verstehen (E-V) in German; second is Apel’s theory of discourse ethics; third, there are a series of essays through which the readers also get a fuller account of Apel’s use of Charles Sanders Peirce’s pragmatic approach to philosophy; and fourth, there are several articles’ that reflect Apel’s contributions to global politics based on his transcendental pragmatic framework. Finally, there is a lengthy discussion of a few other areas of significance that reveals Apel’s conceptual relationship to theories of communication. The first of these areas or fields consists of the way in which Apel takes up hermeneutics. The second is his definition and use of the “self-recuperative principle” while the third consists of his ongoing conversations with social philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Enrique Dussel.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".