MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096257381 · doi:10.47925/2009.129

Guarding and Transmitting the Vulnerability of the Historical Referent

2009· article· en· W2096257381 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophy of education · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHannah Arendt's Political Philosophy
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferentEpistemologyContext (archaeology)Order (exchange)Vulnerability (computing)SociologyPhilosophyHistoryComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In her essay "Truth and Politics," Hannah Arendt distinguishes between "rational truth" and "factual truth." 1 Arendt associates "rational truth" with durability: the human mind will always be able to reproduce axioms, rational discoveries, and theories, so "the burning of all books of geometry would not be radically effective" (TP, 230).On the other hand, when it comes to "factual truth," or the historical referent, we are dealing with something much more fragile that is in danger of being lost forever.Given that historical facts and accounts of events are the outcomes of human beings living and acting together in an ever-changing context -given that historical facts depend on the precariousness of human relationality rather than solitary deductions -Arendt notes that once the historical referent is lost, "no rational effort will ever bring [it] back" (TP, 231, emphasis added).Arendt admits that this is a distinction made "for the sake of convenience" (Ibid.), in order to call our attention to the fragility of the historical referent.Arendt's distinction thus prompts us to appreciate the inherent vulnerability of the past and leads us to recognize the work of remembrance: the fact that the historical referent needs our effort of referencing and recitation in the present in order to survive, to gain countenance, to gather significance, and so to provide us with our bearings in the world.This is an activity that the individual cannot properly undertake by herself; it is always related to others as part of forging a common world.And forging a common world necessarily implies pining for significance -for "the transformation of the given raw material" into a story that can be told (TP, 262).Arendt proposes that the work of preserving the historical referent is vested in a community of interpreters, who can respect the implied double bind in this endeavor: namely, that "even if we admit that every generation has the right to write its historyto rearrange the facts [so that they can convey a meaningful story that will resonate in the present]; we don't admit the right to touch the factual matter itself" (TP, 239).But who makes up this community of interpreters?Noting that the price of the freedom to act in politics includes both the potential of lying and the devastating erasure of the referent by the "modern lie," Arendt, by the end of her essay, invokes two public institutions that are vested with the power to shelter the historical referent.Specifically, she names the judiciary and education as two public spaces that, although they are established and supported by the powers that be, stand outside the struggle of politics in their endeavor to preserve and faithfully guard factual truth.The judiciary and education are carefully protected against social interests and political power, and thus simultaneously provide both a refuge and an active site for the faithful interpretation and dissemination of history.As Arendt writes, "the humanities, which are supposed to find out, stand guard over, and interpret factual

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.286 · 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