Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the second volume of Open Philosophy since the official launch of the journal in 2018.Two years is perhaps enough time for a journal style to emerge, and that is what I will reflect on here.Along with the usual virtues of open access publication -increased readership being foremost among them-there are three features of this journal of which I am already proud.The first is our relatively quick turnaround time on peer reviews, even in an era when academics are overstretched and thus less apt than before to agree to review work: a recent phenomenon familiar to most of those involved with academic publishing.The second is the ability -common to all online journals, though not fully utilized in every case-to publish articles individually as they are accepted rather than having to wait for the final contribution to drift in before bringing anything at all into print.Third, and perhaps most important, is the intellectual diversity of the journal so far.One of our topical issues in 2018 was the fifteen-article "The New Metaphysics: Analytic/Continental Crossovers," co-edited by Paul Livingston (University of New Mexico) and Jon Cogburn (Louisiana State University), two of the figures most associated with recent work criss-crossing the analytic/continental divide.Livingston does this especially well in research blending Derrida and Badiou with the incompleteness theorem of Kurt Gödel, and Cogburn in his book Garcian Meditations and its treatment of the continental Speculative Realism movement in terms of the enclosure paradoxes foregrounded in the work of the unorthodox analytic philosopher Graham Priest.1 The other topical issue in our debut year was "Objects Across the Traditions," edited by Tom Sparrow (Slippery Rock University), the author of three books: including the provocative and widely read The End of Phenomenology.2 Sparrow's issue featured nine articles addressing the theme of objects in a motley assortment of philosophers ranging from Spinoza through Meinong to Sartre.As will always be our policy, the first volume of Open Philosophy also made room for freestanding solo articles outside the umbrella of the official issue topics.The new volume of Open Philosophy now before you features not just two, but four separate topical issues.Mark Kingwell (University of Toronto) offers "Does Public Art Have to Be Bad Art?," including eight articles exploring multiple aspects of this timely topic in aesthetics.More technically minded readers may find themselves drawn to the intriguing articles under the rubric "Computer Modelling in Philosophy," edited by Patrick Grim (Stony Brook University).Next comes the topical issue "Experience in a New Key," under the editorship of Dorthe Jørgensen (Aarhus University), with articles ranging historically from Hegel and Kierkegaard at one end to Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe at the other.The fourth and final topical issue of the volume, edited by me personally, is entitled "Object-Oriented Ontology and Its Critics."This issue received an unusually large number of submissions, presumably due to my dual status as founder of Object-Oriented Ontology and Editor-in-Chief of Open Philosophy.In fact, so great was the number of submitted articles that we plan to offer this topic again in the 2020 volume.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".