Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ninth issue of Conversations responds to Cavell’s thoughts against the backdrop of the history of philosophy in general, and phenomenology, especially Hegel and Heidegger; unfolding metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political, and aesthetic ramifications. It is against that backdrop, that the question arises about the nature and function of dialectic in wording the world, the other, or ourselves, as acknowledged by Paul Franks and Espen Hammer. The idea of the issue arose with an essay (an “attempt”) I was working on, about Cavell, Wittgenstein, and Hegel, at University of Leeds, while also reading The Phenomenology of Spirit with the Hegel Reading Group at the University of Oxford (Michaelmas term, 2020), and, meeting with the Cavellian Reading Group (that at the University of Cambridge, now an international group), upon sharing the idea of the essay with Amir Khan, this started a series of discussions, which eventually resulted in an invitation to guest edit this issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".