Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This essay asks what it means to read literature with philosophy and argues that we should discover the literary work’s own concepts before engaging it in a dialogue with philosophy. The essay also considers the vexed question of whether Hedda Gabler should be read as a “woman’s play” or, rather, as a critique of modernity. With reference to Simone de Beauvoir, it argues that this “choice” is itself an example of a sexist logic. By paying close attention to Hedda’s three significant silences, the essay shows that Hedda chooses to place herself in Judge Brack’s power, that the play’s key concerns are modernity, subjectivity, and meaning, and that its key concepts are silence, hiddenness, disgust, triviality, beauty, freedom, despair, and suicide. The essay ends by relating Hedda Gabler to Kierkegaard’s The Sickness unto Death, before returning to the question of the role of philosophy in literary readings.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".