MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317488152 · doi:10.5840/symposium2000415

Taking Husserl at His Word

2000· article· en· W2317488152 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James K. A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhenomenology and Existential Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWord (group theory)LinguisticsPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For Husserl, natural attitude and hence any further explication of it is put out of play, bracketed by phenomenological epoche, which, of course, is not to deny its existence, but only to turn our theoretical gaze elsewhere. As Husserl remarks, the single facts, facticity of natural world taken universally, disappear from our theoretical regard (Id 60/68). The project of young Heidegger, I will argue, is precisely a concern with facticity, taking up this forgotten project in phenomenology, and thus attempting an explication of natural attitude, considered so extraordinarily important by Husser!. Heidegger thus effects something of a relocation of phenomenology, turning its analysis to a different site: pretheoretical experience. Further, Heidegger also seeks to honor precognitive nature of this pretheoretical experience, or what he will call faktische Lebenserfahrung. As such, young Heidegger is very concerned with Husserl's theoreticization offacticallife. To avoid same in his 'new' phenomenology, Heidegger must develop a new conceptuality: formal indication

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposiumSame topicPhenomenology and Existential PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207