Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting with Vaihinger’s famous trilemma which presents the different possibilities for \nexplaining the origin of affection, I critically assess the classical theses of Jacobi, Aenesidemus-Schulze, \nAdickes, Kemp Smith, Paton and Allison on this subject. I argue that Kant is entitled to claim that both the \nempirical object and the thing in itself are the source of affection. It depends on the point of view one \nadopts: empirical or transcendental. But in this last case we face the famous problem: How could Kant dare \nto depict the thing in itself as the “cause” of affection? I claim that his description complies mutatis mutandis \nwith the conditions imposed upon the principle of causality. If this principle states that the cause and the \neffect are “heterogeneous” and that the necessary cause may be a mere “indeterminate” something, then the \naffecting thing in itself, at its own level, satisfies both conditions: The thing in itself and sensation are \nradically heterogeneous and the essence of this thing remains for Kant totally “problematic”, although its \nexistence is declared certain. The Kantian use of the concept of causality is justified here by what must be \ncalled the self-referentiality of transcendental philosophy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".