Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been treatment of philosophical questions about death since at least Democritus, who lived from 460 to 370 B.C . However, the rise of analytic philosophy in the mid and late twentieth century in Britain and North America, and the accompanying disillusionment with metaphysical speculation, strongly tended to limit philosophical treatment of death to purely conceptual questions about the nature, continuity, and end of consciousness and related issues about personal identity. Despite the more-or-less canonical limits on treatments of death, more recently and especially in the past few years there has been an intriguing increase in British and North American philosophers’ interest in broader questions about death. Much of the renewed interest is due to the growing importance of work in applied ethics on end-of-life issues, but a number of the more recent books and journal articles go beyond those issues to look at fundamental questions about the nature of human life’s inevitable end. More general intellectual interest in the large questions about death has tended and continues to be mainly literary, psychological, and sociological, but works in these areas have also shown a relatively new increase in variously focused considerations of death and how it is approached. The main impetus has been widespread discussion of end-of-life issues, especially assisted suicide and euthanasia: issues that have focused public and learned attention on death and dying.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.034 |
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".