MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2572343923 · doi:10.1353/crc.2016.0039

Rebellion: A Note on Agamben’s Reception of Dostoevsky in The Open

2016· article· en· W2572343923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olga V. Solovieva

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian review of comparative literature · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyLiteratureHebrewRelevance (law)ArtLawLinguisticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In ...the opening chapter of The Open: Man and Animal, Giorgio Agamben makes a rather puzzling reference to Dostoevsky in a discussion of an illumination from a manuscript of a Hebrew Bible in the Ambrosian Library in Milan....Whether it is ironic, or merely a slip of memory, Agamben’s reference immediately disturbs the promise of Isaian reconciliation set out at the beginning of the book. But it is precisely through this disturbance that Agamben’s project in The Open acquires its ultimate ethical relevance.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.031
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0070.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian review of comparative literatureSame topicPolitical Theology and SovereigntyFrench-language works237,207