Bibliographic record
Abstract
This extensive collection of essays is a thorough elaboration of the now well-established thesis that Hegelian philosophy and Canadian socio-political history have an intimate relationship. For example, Canadian history has required collaboration and negotiation between groups, most recently expressed in multiculturalism, which would be expressed through a specifically Canadian form of Hegelian dialectic. The collection centers on five Canadian “Hegelians”—Emil Fackenheim, James Doull, George Grant, Charles Taylor, and Henry S. Harris—who have either made significant contributions to Hegelian scholarship, or its application to Canadian issues, or both. Grouping these five as Hegelians minimizes the fact that both George Grant and Emil Fackenheim explicitly rejected Hegelian philosophy due to its inability to adequately formulate the relationship between particularity and universality. Resolution of dialectical oppositions is described in the various essays of this collection in many different ways: as compromise, tension, consensus, moderation, communication across differences, promise, etc. The cumulative effect is to suggest that any sort of difference will be framed as dialectical opposition, and thus as Hegelian, by these authors. This framing excludes from consideration one significant other manner of conceiving of the Canadian Geist as devolution of state power.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".