Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of the study is to analyze the phenomenon of creativity, which has traditionally been the subject of philosophical investigation. Moreover, the phenomenon of philosophy itself as a creative process often remained in the shadow of general problems. By tacit agreement the creative nature of philosophy was recognized as obvious, and therefore, as a subject of philosophizing, it was often simply left out of the picture. However, again and again, the thesis about the “death of philosophy” makes the question of its creative nature more than relevant. If the creative potential of philosophy has been exhausted, perhaps it is really dying as a special form of thought in culture. If creativity in philosophy is possible, then its cultural prospects become more optimistic, or cultural elimination of philosophy is associated not only (or not so much) with its creative capacity. Creativity became the object of theorization in the Renaissance and Modernity, when man was initially thought of as its subject. Therefore, the very understanding of creativity bears the mark of Modern thinking. However, the "post-" situation forces us to return to the analysis of the problem and consider it in terms of the impossibility of the new. The problem can and should also be considered on the material of Russian philosophical thought, whose status has always been ambiguous, primarily for Russian philosophy itself. Today, the position of Russian philosophy is becoming even more problematic due to the problematization of philosophy as a particular discourse that claims to be universal, on the one hand, and the specifics of Russian theoretical thought labeled as "responsive", its empathicity – on the other.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".