Bibliographic record
Abstract
В статье обсуждается ряд близких понятий, включая «практическое умение», «двигательный навык», «мéтис», «техники тела» и «кинестетический интеллект». Общее между ними то, что накопление знания представлено как процесс, зачастую невербальный, на три четверти бессознательный, за который мышечное чувство отвечает в той же мере, что и сознание или мозг. Это общее может быть зафиксировано термином «телесное знание». Телесное знание – эпистемологическая альтернатива техне, т. е. кодифицированному практическому знанию, формализованному в правилах и инструкциях. Основой телесного знания можно считать мышечное, или кинестетическое чувство. И. М. Сеченов называл его «темным» на том основании, что такие ощущения редко осознаются, вербализуются и подвергаются рефлексии. Однако внутреннее чувствование такого рода нельзя считать полностью противоположным мысли. Это, говоря словами поэта и писателя Варлама Шаламова, «умное уменье», особый вид познания. Ниже приводятся и обсуждаются различные смыслы того, что стоит за выражением «телесное знание». The article discusses a number of connected concepts including “practical skill”, “movement skill”, “metis”, “techniques of the body”, and “kinesthetic intelligence”. They share in common the representation of knowledge as often a non-verbal process, by half and large unconscious, based on muscular sensations as much as on brain and consciousness. The feature that they have in common can be termed “bodily knowledge”, an epistemological alternative to techne, or codified practical knowledge formalized in rules and instructions. Muscular feeling, or kinesthesia is at the foundation of bodily knowledge. I.M. Sechenov called it “dark”, or “opaque”, feeling on the grounds that this kind of sensations are rarely verbalized and reflected upon. Yet, inner sensation of the kind cannot be completely opposed to thinking. Using the poet and writer, Varlam Shalamov’s words, one may call them “sage skill”, a particular kind of knowing. Below there is a discussion of various meaning of the expression, “bodily knowledge”.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".