MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567042581 · doi:10.5195/jffp.2016.726

Beauvoir's Reading of Biology in The Second Sex

2016· article· en· W2567042581 on OpenAlexaff
David M. Peña‐Guzmán

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of French and Francophone Philosophy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicScience Education and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Argument (complex analysis)ExistentialismEpistemologyPerspective (graphical)PhilosophySociologyBiologyLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers a systematic treatment of Beauvoir's reading of biology in The Second Sex. Following Gatens (2003)'s suggestion that this chapter has not received the scholarly consideration it demands and deserves, it explains key aspects of Beauvoir's relationship to biological reason by (i) re-telling the story of Beauvoir's early life from the perspective of her scientific education, (ii) rationally reconstructing her argument in the chapter on "Biological Data," and (iii) exploring the philosophical orientation of her argument using the Frankfurt School model of 'immanent critique.' By illuminating Beauvoir's reading of biology (including evolutionary theory, developmental biology, and physiology), this article contributes to our understanding of her philosophy while also deflating the widespread assumption that existentialist philosophy (including Beauvoir's brand of it) is inherently 'anti-science.'

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.020
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of French and Francophone PhilosophySame topicScience Education and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207