Bibliographic record
Abstract
The French Revolution provided the Enlightenment project not only with a political and social, but also with an intellectual goal. The task was to utilize the liberating potential of human reason and thus to leave behind ‘self-incurred immaturity’. It soon became clear, however, that this was not only easier thought than done, but that it also did not apply to all people in equal measure. While the postulate of equality had certainly been framed in general terms, it nevertheless, in practice, excluded women, the working class, and non-Westerners. Similarly, in many cases, reason itself – lacking faith in its powers as well as affective support – turned out to be a rather feeble category. In view of man’s being an affective creature, Kant approved enthusiasm, even though enthusiasm, as an affect, could, from the point of view of moral philosophy, not compete with reason. The mass enthusiasm for the French Revolution nevertheless seemed to lend cogency to the proposition of the moral disposition of mankind. As a ‘historical sign’, enthusiasm indicates the tendency toward a moral humanity. As Kant puts it in The Conflict of the Faculties (1798): “the passionate participation in the good, i.e., enthusiasm (although not to be wholly esteemed, since passion as such deserves censure), provide through this history the occasion for the following remark which is important for anthropology: genuine enthusiasm always moves only toward what is ideal … , and it cannot be grafted onto self-interest.”
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".