Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Derrida’s critique of Heidegger has received some attention over the past few decades, the difference between Derrida’s conception of “deconstruction” and the hermeneutic conception of Destruktion has never been clearly described. It is this difference that Gadamer called to our attention in his essay, “Destruktion und Dekonstruktion,” and which I would like briefly to clarify in this paper by contrasting Gadamer’s hermeneutic Destruktion to Derrida’s deconstruction. As I shall explain, this difference accounts for the disagreement between the two thinkers regarding the possibility of engaging in a dialogue with a text. After its initial task of “deconstruction,” hermeneutic Destruktion, as Gadamer describes it, has the further task of reviving the issues raised by the text in such a way as to render the text a partner in discussion. It is this dialogue with the text that, according to Gadamer, Derrida’s deconstruction disallows.
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 | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.158 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".