Bibliographic record
Abstract
My hypothesis in this article is that it is possible to use the philosophical concept of technics to solve a conflict in contemporary continental ontology between speculative materialist and (post)phenomenological approaches. More precisely, I will show that technics gives a privileged access to ontology because it leads to a “materialist” ontology, avoiding both theological and nihilistic approaches, and because technics, being by definition a domain of artificiality, precludes any explication of it in terms of naturalist materialism. I start by critically examining two techno-ontologies that come from speculative realism and object-oriented ontology: Levi R. Bryant’s onto-cartography and Graham Harman’s tool-being. I then present, as a counter-position, Jean-Luc Nancy’s idea of “ecotechnology”. In conclusion, I evaluate the usefulness of the concept of technics for ontology and argue that Nancy’s post-phenomenological approach is preferable because it avoids indefensible hypostases and is more attentive to its own discursive status.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".