Lo común: reflexiones en torno a un concepto equívoco
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen Este artículo se propone reflexionar sobre las definiciones y teorías de lo “común” que alimentan los debates contemporáneos en torno a este concepto. Con ese objetivo se interrogan las obras de Christian Laval y Pierre Dardot, Michael Hardt y Antonio Negri, Jean-Luc Nancy y Roberto Esposito. Al analizar estos discursos queda en evidencia que lo que hoy se entiende por común, tanto desde un punto de vista filosófico como práctico-político, asume significados diferentes y muchas veces enfrentados entre sí. El artículo indaga los distintos significados y usos del concepto con el fin de demostrar que esta ambivalencia semántica es un factor decisivo para comprender los alcances y limitaciones del problema de lo común en el mundo actual.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 it