Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay I argue that David Hume is the carrier of a minor Enlightenment tradition of an ethics of appearances grounded in the experience of the advenience of appearances. Focusing on An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, I forward an interpretation of Humeﾒs writings that places them in touch with the explosion of the production and circulation of visual images that occurred throughout eighteenth century Britain and France. My concern is with what I am calling Hume's iconomy and thus, with the thematics of the image its production, circulation, and one's way of attending to it. Within the cultural milieu of an eighteenth century excess of images, I argue, Hume is a figure who is grappling with the ontological stature of appearances made manifest in their ability to stand forth and move about. In short, I consider Hume as one of the first modern thinkers of the moving image and my central contention throughout this essay is that the phenomenon of the moving image is crucial to understanding Hume's moral considerations on sympathy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".