Zabójstwo jako akt metafizyczny. Na marginesie dramatu alberta Camusa 'Kaligula' (CRIME AS A METAPHYSICAL ACT. ABOUT ALBERT CAMUS' DRAMA 'CALIGULA')
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of the article is the possibility of a crime as such. The analysis of the Caligula's crime motivation presented by Camus leads to conclusion that Caligula used to kill his dependents not by political or psychological reasons (as revenge for his sister's death, frightening of his own death or desire for eternity). It was not also moral motivation (an attempt to confirm his freedom, to realize absolute evil or to call people for authentic life). The main Caligula's motivation is rather metaphysical experience of his sister's death showing the cruelty of gods (they make people to live only to put them to death). According to Caligula, his own crimes are only imitation of gods to show how cruel and nonhuman the order of world is. The conclusion is that the question about the possibility of crime is incorrect, because the crime is essential part of the order of world.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".