MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2231836570 · doi:10.22329/p.v7i2.3831

Heidegger Uncovered. An Encounter with: Mark A. Wrathall, <i>Heidegger and Unconcealment: Truth, Language, and History</i>

2012· article· en· W2231836570 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenuePhaenEx · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhenomenology and Existential Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Truth, Language, and History, focuses on Heidegger's idea of alêtheia (Unverborgenheit) and its relation to the opening up of the world, the disclosure of beings, and the uncovering of entities in order to challenge multiple debates in contemporary analytic philosophy on the questions of truth, language, and history.However, these ten essays-two previously unpublished, and all of which span the last ten years of Wrathall's engagement with Heidegger-are more than just a handy resource for those analytic philosophers looking to engage with the methodological principle of unconcealment.What is of equal if not greater importance for Wrathall is to show how and why a failure to understand Heidegger's idiosyncratic and ontologically broad use of terms leads to terrible errors-concealing what Heidegger has to say.Wrathall poses some deep criticisms of entrenched mistakes in the literature on Heidegger, especially with regards to his later work.For example, a failure to realize that Heidegger was using the word "truth" in a broad sense has damaged his account of unconcealment and its relationship to truth.To be sure, Heidegger did use truth as a name for unconcealment; however, it is wrong to assume that by truth, Heidegger was referring to propositional truth or that propositional truth could be defined as unconcealment.Throughout all the essays, Wrathall hones in on misunderstandings such as these, which he compellingly shows to pervade much of the

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhaenExSame topicPhenomenology and Existential PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207