"Humanism" and "Humanness": Dissolution and Reconstruction of Human Subjectivity in the Horizon of Technological Alienation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inquiry into the nature of modern science and technology is an in-depth discussion of the relationship between science and technology and human lifestyles, and the alienation of science and technology is a problem area that occupies an important position in this discussion. From a philosophical point of view, the humanistic and moral consideration of the alienation of science and technology, the comprehensive study and overview of the dialectical relationship between man and science and technology, are helpful to clarify the constructive relationship between the essence of science and technology and the true subjectivity of man. The essence of science and technology lies in the essence of human beings, and the root of the alienation of science and technology lies in the alienation of human nature. Therefore, from the perspective of "being human", through the liberation of modern science and technology, we can achieve the weakening of the alienation of science and technology, in order to realize the reconstruction of human subjectivity, and provide for the weakening of the shackles brought by the development of modern science and technology and the realization of free development of human beings. The theoretical perspective of philosophy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.110 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".