Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout her work, Hannah Arendt continually insists on the importance of the division between public and private. However, while the value of the public is a clear theme in Arendt scholarship, the unique value of the private often goes overlooked. In this essay, I draw on Arendt’s work in The Life of the Mind, particularly her discussion of the thinking activity, in order to draw out the richness that the hiddenness of the private has to offer as well as to explore what it might look like to care for the private in a modern world.Dans son travail, Hannah Arendt insiste continuellement sur l’importance de la division entre le public et le privé. Cependant, bien que la valeur du public soit un thème évident aux oeuvres intellectuelle d’Arendt, la valeur unique du privé vient souvent négligée. Dans cette dissertation, je m’appuie sur les travaux d’Arendt dans The Life of the Mind (La Vie de l’Esprit), en particulier son débat sur l’activité mentale, afin de faire ressortir la richesse dissimulée que le privé a à offrir ainsi que d’explorer ce à quoi cela pourrait ressembler si on s’occupait du privé dans un monde moderne.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".