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 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 | 0.011 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.054 |
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".