MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200524153 · doi:10.25185/10.3

Tecnología, desarraigo, y prácticas focales

2021· article· es· W4200524153 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHumanidades revista de la Universidad de Montevideo · 2021
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical and Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El filósofo americano-alemán contemporáneo Albert Borgmann describe las sociedades modernas como estructuradas sobre un paradigma tecnológico basado en el consumo, el desarraigo de la realidad y la falta de compromiso. Como reacción a este paradigma, Borgmann indica la necesidad de establecer prácticas alrededor de cosas focales que den centro al mundo personal y social, dándole un sentido pleno, y que fomenten la buena vida. En 1993, el filósofo americano Patrick Dust contrastó el pensamiento de Borgmann con el de Ortega y Gasset, sugiriendo que Ortega presenta ideas más claras y útiles para comprender la tecnología. Este artículo, en cambio, propone que las filosofías de Ortega y Borgmann coinciden en gran medida, ya que los dos presentan la misma solución al problema tecnológico contemporáneo basada en el cultivo de prácticas focales.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it