MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318820259 · doi:10.18192/cjcs.vi9.6248

Some Notes on Philosophy and Redemption

2022· article· en· W4318820259 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Мартин Шустер

Bibliographic record

VenueConversations The Journal of Cavellian Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicWittgensteinian philosophy and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyRelation (database)EpistemologyOrdinary language philosophy20th-century philosophyContemporary philosophyWestern philosophyEastern philosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an earlier essay, I once drew a comparison between Theodor W. Adorno’s remark that, “philosophy, which once appeared obsolete, sustains itself because the moment for its actualization has been lost,” and Stanley Cavell’s suggestion that Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “Investigations can be seen as a philosophy of culture, one that relates itself to its time as a time in which the continuation of philosophy is at stake.” In this essay, I’d like to compare Adorno’s remark to a different but related remark of Cavell’s, namely his thought that “philosophy ends in a recovery from a terminable loss.” He pursues this thought in remarks on Emerson, noting that “philosophy begins in loss, in finding yourself at a loss, as Wittgenstein more or less says.” Many different traditions—Marxism, American transcendentalism, ordinary language philosophy, just to name a few—animate these thoughts. This is not the place to detail and tease out the ramifications and significances of each; instead, I want to take this very short essay merely to raise a different point of relation than I raised before (in a deep way, then, this essay—and especially its short length—may be seen as a sort of afterword to my earlier remarks).

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConversations The Journal of Cavellian StudiesSame topicWittgensteinian philosophy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207