MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468733056 · doi:10.1057/9781137324504_9

Compromise Formations: Bergson’s Vitalism

2013· book-chapter· en· W2468733056 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Crocker

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitalismCompromiseImmediacyPhilosophyEpistemologyIntuitionConsciousnessAestheticsSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the center of Bergson’s philosophy, we find a basic dualism of mechanism and vitality that repeats itself in a variety of oppositions, such as discrete and continuous multiplicities, points and continua, or synchronous and diachronous time. On the one hand, Bergson recognizes that we have to live in bodies and machines, languages and numbers, whose ‘discrete’ qualities separate us form the flow of life — the élan vital. On the other hand, he will sometimes speak about intuition (rather than intelligence) as a kind of sympathy with things that allows us to fall out of reason and back into the immediacy of life. It is easy to suppose that Bergson is an animist or vitalist who rejects the contrivances of culture in order to fall back into the wellspring of being. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.027
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicPhilosophical and Theoretical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207