Précis of The Concept of Argument. A Philosophical Foundation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theoretical labor carried out over the past half-century in the field of argumentation theory has become so rich, heterogenous, and controversial by now that there is an urgent need for a philosophically reflected foundation. The present book attempts to deliver such a basis using, in particular, elements of dialectics (Plato, Hegel) and pragmatism (Peirce, Dingler, Lorenzen). It approaches argumentation against the background of the conditio humana: as the medium of maintaining and improving orientation for all aspects of life. This perspective is more abstract than the usual way of addressing argument as a specific way of persuasive communication. However, that abstract philosophical perspective allows, on a concrete level, a more realistic theorization of the practice of argument. Thus, it exhibits some significant new traits, mainly concerning its subjective and its dynamic side.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it