Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because Hegelian ontology unfolds as a dialectical logic of implications without a foundational transcendental structure grounding it, it has been aligned with the category of “becoming” and process ontology more than with the category of “being” and substantive ontology. Of course this is an oversimplification, just as is Derrida’s characterization of “Aufhebung” as a “master category” as if it is a transcendental determiner guiding the entire dialectical development,1 or the all-too-common “great entity” interpretations of Hegel criticized by Kolb.2 While it is true enough that becoming emerges through the unsustainability of the category “being” with which the Logic begins, becoming too is superseded through its own implicit contradictions. This is a problem with post-Nietzschean anti-foundationalist attempts to valorize “becoming” over “being”3 — to collapse ontological determinacies back into “becoming” is to always return to the same determinacy, namely, “becoming,” which means that such efforts fail to get what they want. In other words, to really get at becoming, the determinacy of “becoming” itself must likewise “become.” To the degree that it remains becoming, it remains the same and therefore is not becoming. Thus in Hegelian ontology “becoming” too cannot remain the determinacy that it is.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".