Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite Merleau-Ponty’s well-known reservations about some aspects of Husserlian phenomenology, this chapter shows that the analyses of perceptual experiences carried out in the Phenomenology of Perception accord with Husserl’s on a fundamental respect: like for Husserl, Merleau-Ponty conceives of perception, illusions, and hallucinations both in intentional and normative terms. After having shown the role of the norms of concordance (Section 2.1) and optimality (Section 2.2) in Merleau-Ponty’s account of perceptions, the chapter provides a detailed analysis of his phenomenological conception of illusion (Section 2.3) and hallucination (Section 2.4) in turn, exposing how Merleau-Ponty defines both types of experiences in terms of the specific ways they break with the norms of regular perceptual experiencing. Throughout, the chapter insists more on the commonalities than on the differences between Husserl’s and Merleau-Ponty’s accounts of perceptual experience and demonstrates how both phenomenologists deal with the threat of scepticism (Section 2.5).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".