Bibliographic record
Abstract
To-be being-with, that is, to be co-constitutive of the world of spirit and as well of the world of the social: this is how Jean-Luc Nancy reformulates Hegel's question of Being's identity with thought. Nancy's preoccupation with the Thought-event of being offers a transformative reading of Hegel, one which calls for a move beyond the political tradition of Being's identity with representational thought. Hegel contributes to a renewal of the idea of thinking that moves beyond representation by introducing a movement into thought as driven by a force that is not simply the negativity of Kant's “thing-in-itself.” It is received orthodoxy that Hegel understood representation as representing thought as dialectical movement. Yet as Nancy argues, Hegel grasps that under the force of development of a necessary transcendental illusion thought no longer can remain at the level of representation, and the principle that drives it is rather ontic-ontological. I will introduce a three-point approach to reconstructing the shift to an ontology of Being-with, but first, I will sketch this perspective more generally.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".