Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debates around cancel culture are often framed as culture wars between supporters of free speech and those who are trying to secure broader social goods against the powerful.This thesis explores the question of "cancellation" on philosophical grounds.In this research project, I ask how we can approach the question of when, or if we can, or should, "cancel" philosophers.I investigate how to approach opposing and controversial philosophical positions, how to reconcile problematic conceptions, and how to understand them.Specifically, I aim to draw heavily on Hegel's dialectical methodology and notion of Aufhebung in my analysis.I rely on the Hegelian conceptions of negation and Aufhebung to understand how ideas can transition, develop, and grow -and approach how even problematic or controversial ideas can be productively transformed and sublated, rather than 'cancelled'.I apply this Hegelian lens specifically in exploring how Martin Heidegger's philosophical works could be approached given his relationship with Nazi ideology.Introduction .....
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".