MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254767936 · doi:10.3138/seminar.2016.52.1.22

The Sovereign Translation: Mediation and Hölderlin’s “Das Höchste”

2016· article· en· W2254767936 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard Pierre

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminar A Journal of Germanic Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyMediationSketchContext (archaeology)PhilosophyModernityPower (physics)Economic JusticeHumanitiesSociologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawHistoryComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article uncovers the distinctive relationship between sovereignty and translation that is embedded in Hölderlin’s “Das Höchste” (a translation of and commentary to Pindar’s fragment “Nomos Basileus”). “Das Höchste” asserts that sovereign power is always a mediation of the foundational principles of justice, which it can access only indirectly when enacting law. Translation corresponds to this figuration of sovereignty to the extent that it always mediation rather than a direct conveyance of language, text, and context. As this article demonstrates by juxtaposing “Das Höchste,” Hölderlin’s letter to Casimir Böhlendorff on modernity’s relationship to Greek antiquity, and his sketch “Urtheil und Seyn,” Hölderlin understands both sovereignty and translation in terms of problems of knowledge. The concept of discipline (Zucht) as raised in “Das Höchste” indicates how the sovereign/translation might proceed in strict awareness of the fundamental divide between antiquity and the present, text and translation, and justice and law.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.382
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminar A Journal of Germanic StudiesSame topicPolitical Theology and SovereigntyFrench-language works237,207