Bibliographic record
Abstract
teaches appears to be a simple statement of fact addressing Andreas-Salome's writings about Nietzsche, but this article will expand on this statement to explore other meanings and implications. The notion that, more than going on from her encounter with Nietzsche merely to explain and mediate his philosophy, Andreas-Salome might also have taught him something might at first seem counterintuitive. One expects instead a relationship in which the mature, independent philosopher Nietzsche acted as the teacher and mentor of the gifted young woman. Tradition wants such a relationship, propriety and common sense as well. But to limit the Nietzsche-Salome relationship to such an insipid constellation is not only offensive to Andreas-Salome, who was more capable than most of holding her own with Nietzsche, but insulting as well to Nietzsche, whose conceptions of teaching and education are anything but traditional. Since the 1890s, when rival Nietzsche camps grew up around (the then) Lou von Salome on the one hand, and Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche on the other, Andreas-Salome has been regarded as a disciple of Nietzsche. Rudolf Binion's 1968 book, Frau Lou: Nietzsche's Wayward Disciple, has solidified this view in our century. Yet while many still take Binion's treatment to be the last
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".