Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reader who attempts a hermeneutic understanding of Heidegger's Being and Time (SZ) has traditionally faced two notable challenges.' The first is that SZ is an incomplete text; the two published divisions represent approximately one third of the overall work as it is projected in Heidegger's introduction (SZ 3940). The second challenge is that Heidegger published very little in the years preceding the appearance of SZ. The primary barometer of his thinking during this period is found in the manuscripts of his lecture courses and in his students' notes. Since much of this material has only been published in the last twenty years, access to this work has historically been limited. These lacunae have made it difficult to situate SZ both within the context of Heidegger's early thought, and relative to the question which guides his entire philosophical endeavor—namely the Seinsfrage or the question of the meaning of Being. This is the question with which Heidegger begins his investigation in SZ (SZ 2-19), and it is meant to frame the discussion in the extant two divisions dealing with the Being of Dasein. Due to the incomplete nature of the text, however, it is easy to overlook that this discussion of Dasein is to be understood against the horizon of the Seinsfrage. Moreover, in the absence of further evidence of Heidegger's thinking leading up to this point, there is little to remind the reader of Heidegger's concern with the Seinsfrage during this period of his philosophical development. These factors have fostered two general tendencies in traditional Heidegger interpretation. First, the observation is often made that Heidegger's early work is concerned with the Being of Dasein while his later work deals with Being in a broader sense. This view de-emphasizes the continuity in Heidegger's early and later thoughts and seems untenable upon consideration of Heidegger's early lecture courses which make it clear that Being was an early
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".