Bibliographic record
Abstract
The account of his own authorship provided by Kierkegaard in The Point of View for My Work as an Author has often been greeted with skepticism. Inconsistencies within the work have led some commentators to regard the work as a fabrication, and many have challenged the plausibility of Kierkegaard's claim that his whole literary endeavour was a religious one. We are urged therefore to treat Kierkegaard's “report to history” with a good dose of skepticism. I propose, in response to such skeptical interpretations, that The Point of View for My Work as an Author should be regarded instead as an exercise in confessional autobiography in which the author genuinely seeks to discern the hand of God in the development of his authorship. The inconsistencies detected in Kierkegaard's several attempts to reflect on the nature and development of his literary output may be attributed, I contend, both to the gradual realization of the role played by “Governance” in his literary career and to Kierkegaard's reticence in claiming that God had been centrally involved in his authorship. Given the comparable claims made by others in the Christian tradition who have confessed their dependence on divine guidance, Kierkegaard's proposal that his whole authorship took shape under the hand of “Governance” deserves serious consideration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".