Philosophizing the Jobs’s iPhone within Philospohical Hermeneutics Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian thinker holds a stand that people ‚grasp their life in a narrative‛.Following his conception of narrative notably explicated within identity discussion context in Charles Taylor's remarkable Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (HUP 1989), we might think of a narrative as an unavoidable form that shapes one's private and professional relationships.Especially, the last one is recognizable in the modern world of high-tech and digitally mediated business (and relations).Within these lines the author primarily aiming to establish methodological base for understanding the concept of digital narrative, which is proposed by the master of digital smart technology and an inventor of i-Phone ( 2007): Steve Jobs.The author's thesis is, that, as highlight of 21st c. modern technologies, Steve Jobs's iPhone represents more than a mere 'money-can-buy-product'.With its app(s)designed, a cell phone of a kind as i-Phone certainly is represents an idea of one's personal (digital) identity.In order to show how philosophy can shape human private and professional practice in the digital era, the two philosopher's outlooks will be proposed in the following pages.The author's start-position is that human life sphere in the digital age takes shape through manifold technological influences produced and launched by public and digital media (e. g.TV, Internet, radio, smart-phones, iPads etc.) as well as through other forms of the whole range of high technologies, what has, consequentially, changed human agency and the picture of what personal identity is.This elaboration tends to answer the two: (1) the nature of narrative within one's personal identity shaping by following theoretical positions of the two brilliant thinkers: Charles Taylor and Paul Ricoeur and (2) the meaning of narrated identities within the context of human agency shaped by strong digital communication mediated by i(Phone)technology?
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".