MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2265507302 · doi:10.25071/1916-7210.15367

Adorno’s Thought-Image of Kierkegaard

2008· article· en· W2265507302 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clifford Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategies of Critique · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicKierkegaardian Philosophy and Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)PhilosophyIdealismReciprocity (cultural anthropology)EpistemologyHegelianismConstruct (python library)DialecticMetaphysicsAestheticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his recent work, Thought-Images: Frankfurt School Writer’s Reflections from Damaged Life, Gerhard Richter contends that it is the insight into the aesthetic dimensionality of truth that is the unifying principle holding together the diversity of approaches characteristic of the Frankfurt School thinkers. In this paper, Clifford Lee offers three passages from Kierkegaard’s writing as examples of the type of writing Richter describes as thought-images. These aesthetic constructions are shown to be suggestive of the tense relation Kierkegaard’s thought bears to the idealism it seeks to escape and to serve as illustrations of how this relation plays itself out in the work his writing requires of its reader. Offering Adorno’s first published work, Kierkegaard: Construction of the Aesthetic, as an attempt to construct a thought-image of Kierkegaard, Lee argues for a reciprocity in this project that an understanding of Kierkegaard’s thought-images would grant us an understanding of Adorno’s project that acknowledges the challenge placed upon his readers by the irreducibility of its aesthetic component.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.032
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrategies of CritiqueSame topicKierkegaardian Philosophy and InfluenceFrench-language works237,207