Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting from the concept of the demonic, which is understood along the lines of Søren Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, and Fedor Stepun as a cognitive and emotional narrowing, the article analyzes Vladimir Putin’s verbal armament up to 24 February 2022 and beyond (18 March, 9 May, 9 June 2022). The reason why the announcements of the invasion were not understood as actual announcements is that demonic action lies beyond instrumentally rational comprehension. A discourse analysis of the demonic in a cognitive and rhetorical sense is therefore developed as an analytically preventive means of recognizing such speech in its dangerousness. The basic principles of the demonic in communicative action are already shown by Kierkegaard with his metaphor of the spinning top of the demonic which is permanently turning around its own axis, and in Tillich’s characterization of the demonic as a “claim of something finite to infinity.” Primarily in four complex speech acts, SACRALIZATION, ALARMING, THREATENING, and JUSTIFICATION, demonical rhetoric revolves around an object that forms the axis of a spinning top. Such rhetorical rotation around the object “Russia” and its greatness can be seen in Putin’s speeches and performances since the beginning of his presidency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".