Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses theoretical parallels between Durkheim's concept of the totem and Foucault's concept of ` dispositif ' (social apparatus) and draws attention to the respective attempts by these theorists, in which these concepts play a substantial role, to move beyond Kantian conceptions of reality. It is argued that both concepts refer to historically specific structures constitutive of human existence, and to politics as an irreducible feature of such structures. In particular, Durkheim provides an understanding of the truly exceptional potential of politics to constitute meaningful human existence, attaching `words and things'. Hence, his discussion of religion is not simply about reproducing relations of domination. Comparing the concepts of totem and dispositif can aid in developing a richer conception of the contingent manner in which the existential structure of social life is formed by the effects of `politics'. In this light, Durkheim offers a plausible resolution to a lacuna in Foucault by providing an account of the causal force of politics in constituting collective existence. Foucault's attention to contingent causality does similar work to remedy an obscurantist expressivism which subtends Durkheim's account of totem-creation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".