Socio – Phylosophical Creation of the Concept of “Soul”: the Experience of Postmodern Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the article it is noted that in the socio-historical period, the concept of "Soul" has always been quite open and controversial for various reasons for the idea of it.Even in the twenty-first century, the conceptual essence of the notion of the "Soul" phenomenon has not been fully reproduced.The methodology of research, which leads to the consideration of the concepts of philosophical and sociophilosophical, but with the intention intentions (intention in the direction of thought) of the spiritual aura, is stipulated.It turns out that in methodological dynamism, the constant manifests itself through the triad of its components: the spiritual foundation, philosophical, social, which goes into one -the spiritual-philosophical and social, and this tendency of postmodern and neo-postmodern -is a definite futuristic point.The conclusions state that the concept of the phenomenon of the soul functions on the verge of figurative and abstract, which is the one that is most prone to comprehensiveness.It is clear that only the "technical" side of the concept is not fully able to meet the needs of philosophizing, because it is, if it were "the cornerstone" and is a feature of postmodern, and the way out of this "closed corner of the stop" in neo-postmodern toleration -sensory consideration -emotional The basic concepts of the "mind of the soul" are the manifestation of the nature of the phenomenon of the soul, having the status of recognition through the confirmation of its authenticity, and moreover -this rekognitivnost (recognition) of the concepts of the phenomenon of the soul has the ability and the ability to recognize the "traces" of past perception, which already speaks of that , that there is an opportunity to tolerate -the concept of retention (holding) the phenomenon of the soul in the actual given point temporal, namely in true perception.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".