Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo demonstra a maneira pela qual o pensamento de Nancy sobre o toucher é herdeiro, mas, ao mesmo tempo, radicalmente se distancia da fenomenologia do corpo de Husserl em Ideas II. Em primeiro lugar, demonstro a maneira como o toque é crucial para a constituição de Leib como: 1) unidade não sujeita à fragmentação, 2) orientação ponto zero, e 3) portador de sensações localizadas. Em seguida, demonstro a maneira pela qual a compreensão de Nancy do toucher subverte as características husserlianas de Leib e assim mina a centralidade da intencionalidade que permanece presente no Husserl tardio. Abstract: In this article I show how Nancy’s thinking on toucher inherits but also radically departs from Husserl’s phenomenology of the body in Ideas II. First, I show how touch is crucial to the constitution of Leib as 1) unity not subject to fragmentation, 2) zero point of orientation, and 3) bearer of localized sensations. Then, I show how Nancy’s understanding of toucher subverts the Husserlian characteristics of the Leib and hence undermines the centrality of intentionality that remains present in the later Husserl. Keywords: toucher; Nancy; Husserl; Ideas II
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".