Bibliographic record
Abstract
Noli foras ire, in te ipsum redi. De Vera Rel ., 39.72 INTRODUCTION In Chapters 1 and 2 of this study I propose the view that Augustine's soliloquies were intended to be understood as “spiritual exercises.” In Chapter 2, I outline the history of the soliloquy as a literary and philosophical genre in antiquity and discuss Augustine's use of soliloquies in handling one philosophical problem, namely the demonstration against Scepticism of the undeniability of the self's existence. In this chapter I am concerned with more general influences shaping Augustine's conception of such an exercise. As a preface to the topic of general influences, I should like to return briefly to the question of Augustine's intellectual disorderliness in the dialogues. In the Introduction I tackled this question from the viewpoint of their disunifying features. I suggested that there are two sources of this apparent confusion, one of which, namely Augustine's implicit criticism of the external dialogue, is deftly introduced into the ongoing discussion of philosophical questions in order to create a favourable reception for his preferred alternative, the inner dialogue or soliloquy. In general, the problem of the dialogues' disunity has been approached in one of two ways. The first was suggested by Pascal, who said that Augustine's sense of order includes even his digressions. In his view the non sequiturs break the flow of the discourse so frequently that they should be viewed as a principle of organization in themselves.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".