Bibliographic record
Abstract
as this book's title indicates, "modernity" is here viewed in a delimited way, its areas of concern being confined to self-enacting reasons in history and politics.In tracing and characterizing these reasons as causalities, I see "self-enactment" in modernity essentially as a search for new answers to old questions such as: Who am I? What are others to me and I to them?And, perhaps most crucially, where do I fit in?What is the space in which I am placed, its scope and its boundaries?These are, therefore, questions of identity, mutuality, self-location, and range of agency, which confront the self in the changing modern world.Both parts of the book variously point to new understandings or directions that modernity's answers to these questions arguably yield.While no attempt is made to elicit features of modernity as a whole -as a cultural epoch or a cosmology -and, likewise, neither part of the book claims comprehensiveness in the themes and voices chosen, I do believe that both parts offer core insights into prevalent trends of historical and political thinking during the period.Perhaps I might add that, although the chapters are internally connected and, in places, overlapping, they can be read for the most part as self-contained.Two occurrences, separate in time, gave the earliest incentives to the book's overall thrust.The first consisted of having my attention drawn in the early sixties to R.G. Collingwood (by Isaiah Berlin, in connection with my interest in Herder's philosophy of history), particularly to his paper on political action.* The second came chiefly in the form of a conference, given in honour of Hannah Arendt, in Toronto in 1972, in
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.603 | 0.413 |
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".