MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390071401 · doi:10.3138/tjt-2023-0014

Self-Identity: Mid-Twentieth Century Philosophical and Literary Interaction on the Experience of “I” and “Non-I”

2023· article· en· W4390071401 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nadezhda Gonotskaya

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicScientific Research and Philosophical Inquiry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphysicsEpistemologyIdentity (music)Relation (database)DialecticConversationAutonomySelfMeaning (existential)PhilosophyProcess (computing)SociologyIdentification (biology)AestheticsLiteratureComputer scienceLinguisticsArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article substantiates the autonomy of a philosophical text in relation to a literary text. Max Frisch's novel Stiller 1 is used to illustrate the idea of the dialectical nature of the process of concealing/revealing metaphysical meaning in a work of fiction regarding the problem of self-identification and the construction of one's own “I,” which is pivotal in this novel. The philosophical idea of self-identity as the goal of the process of self-knowledge exists only as a projection; it is not feasible in life. On the contrary, the novel Stiller, considered through the prism of basic ideas of philosophy of the twentieth century, allows the reader not only to better understand the inconsistency of the process of self-knowledge, but that it involves a reconfiguration of meanings in a conversation about being, and therefore requires a philosophical revision of the essence of the problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.075
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicScientific Research and Philosophical InquiryFrench-language works237,207