MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944933590

Infinite Ends and the Tempo of Life: Notes on the Marx/Simmel Divergence/Convergence

2019· article· en· W2944933590 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Kemple

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis, Philosophy, and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReification (Marxism)Marxist philosophyEpistemologyCapitalismAlienationSociologyNeoclassical economicsLabor theory of valuePhilosophyEconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simmel's arguments in the  Philosophy of Money  on individual freedom and exchange-value seems to contradict Marx's arguments in  Capital  concerning exploitation and labour-value. At the same time, his ideas on the transformation of means into ends as the basis for a new style of life also complement Marx's examination of the dynamics of objectification, alienation, and reification in capitalist money economies. This essay elaborates on this divergence and convergence in the work of Marx and Simmel with reference to how they address the pace and tempo of modern life. To the degree that both thinkers left a lasting impression in the work of Georg Lukacs, some attention is also given to the implications of their ideas for post-Marxist critical theory. In short, the conceptual problem of capital conversion – the spatial-temporal process of valorization and transvaluation of life and labour through money and machines – provides the common ground between their approaches to value and reification as well as a fruitful source for future analysis.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.047
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychoanalysis, Philosophy, and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207