Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE CLASSICAL HERITAGE In 1788, Johann August Heinrich Ulrich, respected professor at Jena, published a little book entitled Eleutheriologie oder über Freiheit und Nothwendigkeit (Eleutheriology, or Of Human Freedom and Necessity) as a text for his Michaelmas lectures of that year. As we shall see, the text became normative for the debate on freedom that was soon to break out. In response, Kant wrote a small essay that was then turned by his friend Kraus into a review published in the ALZ in an April issue of 1788. One year later, in 1789, Jacobi published a second, much enlarged edition of his Spinoza book, which he prefaced with fifty-two propositions – twenty-three purporting to defend the thesis ‘Man does not have Freedom’; the remaining twenty-nine, the opposite thesis ‘Man has Freedom’. He also added to it eight lengthy supplements in which he restated his views regarding Spinoza and Leibniz, clarified his own position with respect to both, and sharply criticized Herder – in all instances with the issue of human freedom clearly in view. We shall return to this contribution of Jacobi in due time and to Ulrich's in just a moment. First, however, we should recall the origin of the terms in which the issue of ‘human freedom’, paramount to both works, was being discussed at the time. And, for this, we must again turn to Leibniz, for he had been the one responsible for setting them.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".