Book review on "Cafenele filosofice LUMEN", volume 1, edited by Antonio SANDU & Bogdan POPOVENIUC, LUMEN Publishing, 2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The philosophical cafés were formally established for the first time by Marc Sautet as a technique for facilitating philosophical dialogue. The theoretical foundation of this model is based on the Habermasian theory of communicative action and the conviction that the literary and philosophical cafes, seen as spaces of public debate, form the genuine genesis of the public sphere. The founder of philosophical cafés as a practice of philosophizing opened the first philosophical cafe in Paris in 1992. The concept became soon internationally widespread. After having been initiated in France, it quickly developed in countries such as England, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, America, Canada, Japan, Australia, and so on. Its basic ideas, consistent with those specific to practical philosophy, aim to return philosophy to the original practices of intellectual exercise intended for an elevated audience, but not necessarily an aristocratic or culturally fancy one. Practically, the philosophical cafe reinvents the idea of a literary cafe, taking from it the spirit of public debates. However, their triggers were ideas found in philosophical texts. The focus is not necessarily on the philosophical rigor of the discussions, but, above all, on sparking notions of tolerance and spiritual openness. This particular model of practical philosophy is constituted in a framework of general philosophical discussions. Their thematic concerns are most varied, without necessarily involving professional philosophizing. The participants of the philosophical cafés address a diversity of topics, which are just an excuse for the exercise of rational abilities, critical and creative thinking. They aimed for prospective approaches in a relaxed atmosphere, uniting people keen on free discussions, in a friendly and accessible public third space.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.037 |
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".