Bibliographic record
Abstract
Michel Henry's reception in English-speaking scholarship has been fragmentary at best.His phenomenological work has yet to be fully received and, accordingly, has hardly ever been fully comprehended.There is no English-language example of a detailed section-by-section exegesis where his work is systemically read and synoptically interpreted, where its internal motivations and developments are highlighted, and its theses are contextualized within the histories of French phenomenology and German idealism. 1 Although many of his monographs have appeared in English translation, his voluminous articles and occasional works have not -until now.Despite this relative Anglophone scholarly invisibility, Henry's work is important.Understanding Henry's historical significance is necessary to comprehend the shape of twentieth and twenty-first century French philosophy, and the shape of Francophone reception of Husserl and Heidegger in particular.Henry's inauguration of a so-called theological turn within a phenomenological sphere -surely one of the most important developments in French thought of the twentieth century -presages and makes possible that of other iterations or reactions significantly more famous in the English-speaking world, such as in Ricoeur, Derrida, Levinas, Marion, and Laruelle.In order to understand both the importance and limitation of this collection, it is useful to note 1.This is because Henry's work was translated in English relatively late.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.013 |
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".