Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este artículo abordamos la filosofía moral de Charles Taylor. El filósofo canadiense establece una relación constitutiva entre nuestros horizontes éticos y el modo en el cual construimos nuestra identidad. Esta construcción se realiza por medio de la actividad narrativa de los agentes que dan forma al espacio moral en función de los horizontes de sentido que los orientan en el mismo. Autores como Paul Ricoeur, Alasdair MacIntyre, entre otros, han defendido, frente a la pretensión de tratar las cuestiones relativas a la identidad por medio de análisis metafísicos como los que propone la tradición analítica originada en las obras de John Locke, David Hume, hasta autores contemporáneos como Derek Parfit, la necesidad de hacerlo de manera fenomenológica y hermenéutica. Finalmente, exploramos las estratégicas frente a la cuestión que en la tradición Mahayana del Budismo, asumen autores como Nâgârjuna, Chandrakirti y Tsong Khapa, y las implicaciones hipotéticas que estas posiciones conllevan para el debate filosófico contemporáneo.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".