MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407551551 · doi:10.70902/t41qnq51

Burckhardt, Hesse and Nietzsche: Which Pathway?

2024· article· en· W4407551551 on OpenAlexaff
Ron Dart

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilanthropia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical Ethics and Theory
Canadian institutionsSt. Stephen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article will touch on the critique of the modern liberal project by Burckhardt, Nietzsche, and Hesse—such a critique of liberal modernity tends to be seen as a form of conservatism. But, Burckhardt, Nietzsche, and Hesse understood the meaning of conservatism (each and all drawing from the classical ethos and tradition) in different ways and for different reasons. Each of them, also, had a concern for what it meant to care for the human journey (philanthropos) in diverging ways and for different reasons. This essay will reflect on their shared questioning of the modern project and its notions of the self and society but their diverging answers and prognosis to doubts and diagnosis of the modern and, in our ethos, postmodern project.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilanthropiaSame topicPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryFrench-language works237,207