Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a famous article reflecting on his own position within the sciences, Jürgen Habermas proposed that philosophy should take its existing role of intellectual usher – showing each science to its assigned seat – and ‘exchange it for the part of stand-in ( Platzhalter )’. By this he meant that philosophy could serve as a sort of avant-garde, proposing radical ideas, inspired by scientific problems but not yet supported by evidence, that would eventually be taken up by ‘empirical theories with strong universalist claims’. His examples of such ideas were Freud’s explanation of symptom formation through repression, Durkheim’s idea of the sacred as producer of solidarity, and Chomsky’s argument that language acquisition was a kind of hypothesis-testing. Each of these thinkers (along with Weber and Piaget) ‘inserted a genuinely philosophical idea like a detonator into a particular context of research’, forever changing the field. There have been many arguments about what kind of intellectual Bakhtin was – philosopher, literary critic, cultural theorist? – and whether we should value him for his philosophical contributions or for making more modest, but more solid, contributions to the theory of language or literature. Habermas’s shrewd suggestion may provide an answer that makes everyone happy. For Bakhtin was the classic philosopher as stand-in, inserting some genuinely philosophical ideas like detonators into fields of research.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.133 | 0.056 |
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".