Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Phenomenology of Perception, Merleau-Ponty presents an account of an “anonymous” body that informs perception and habit and that exerts a normative force in shaping more personal aspects of who we are. This paper demonstrates the relevance of Merleau-Ponty’s account of anonymity to interpersonal experience. I argue that although anonymity is a necessary condition of interpersonal life, it inhibits our recognition of our own and others’ freedom. I draw on Derrida’s analysis of justice in “Force of Law” to propose that ethical interpersonal life requires that we develop a critical relationship to the anonymity that underlies our experience of others.Dans la Phénoménologie de la perception Merleau-Ponty présente sa conception de l’anonymat du corps, en tant qu’il influence la perception et l’habitude et en tant qu’il exerce une force normative sur les aspects personnels du soi. L’article analyse la pertinence de cette conception de l’anonymat pour l’expérience interpersonnelle. Bien que l’anonymat soit une condition nécessaire à la vie interpersonnelle, je soutiens qu’il nous empêche de reconnaître notre liberté ainsi que celle des autres. En faisant appel à l’analyse de la justice entreprise par Derrida dans Force de Loi, je montre qu’une vie interpersonnelle éthique nécessite le développement d’un rapport critique à l’anonymat qui sous-tend notre expérience des autres.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.006 |
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".