Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ernst Alfred Cassirer was a philosopher and intellectual historian. The central concept of Cassirer’s system is that of symbolic form. Owing to Cassirer’s affiliations with Hermann Cohen (1848–1918) and the Marburg School, the concept is generally taken to be extension of Kant’s notion of the categories. There is some truth to the claim: Cassirer does maintain that human knowledge depends on our ability to give form to experience and that we use symbolic forms to give experience its shape. Neo-Kantians (among whom Cassirer is often counted) believed that sensation provides the material of experience, while the faculty they usually called "understanding" imposes form on the material of sensation to produce experience. However, the concept goes well beyond Kant’s ideas on the categories or their neo-Kantian extensions. Heinrich Hertz’s (1857–1894) Die Prinzipien der Mechanik (1894), especially its concept of "pictures," which linked concepts to intuition, transformed Cassirer’s Kantianism. Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s (1807–1887) Hegelian-inspired Ästhetik oder Wissenschaft des Schönen (3 vols., 1846–1857), endowed the concept with an idealist cast—indeed, a broader influence was the notion of the Idea in the German absolute Idealism. Cassirer traced the development of symbolic form through myth (Cassirer was influenced by Aby Warburg [1866–1929] and his Bibliothek Warburg), art, mathematics, science, and philosophy, identifying the stages of development as mimetic, analogical and the symbolic expression. He expounded his conception of symbolic form in the magisterial three-volume work, Philosophie der symbolischen Formen [The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms] (1923–1929).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.012 |
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".