MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092213686 · doi:10.1017/s1537592703410153

Reason and Horror: Critical Theory, Democracy and Aesthetic Individuality. By Morton Schoolman. New York: Routledge, 2001. 348p. $85.00 cloth, $24.95 paper

2003· article· en· W2092213686 on OpenAlexaff
Shane Gunster

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Politics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Theory and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolityDemocracyValue (mathematics)PsychoanalysisSociologyPhilosophyAestheticsEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawPsychologyPoliticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Alexis de Tocqueville are commonly known for their critique of liberal democracy. However, in a fascinating new study, Morton Schoolman marshals novel readings of each theorist to argue for the value of a democratic polity in creating and sustaining what he terms “aesthetic individuality,” an ethical disposition toward the other that values difference as a resource in the ongoing project of forming the self.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.019
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on PoliticsSame topicCritical Theory and PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207