A Refutation of R.G. Collingwood’s Theory of Re-enactment and Its Revisionist Reformulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article identifies and explains the manifold methodological, metaphysical, and epistemological errors vitiating R.G. Collingwood’s theory of re-enactment. The aim is not only to refute Collingwood’s claims and conclusions but also to expose the faulty reasoning on which they are based. An adjunct goal is to subject the currently consensual interpretation of Collingwood’s theory of re-enactment to close interrogation in order to examine both (1) vital elements of his theory that the revisionist interpretation ignores, smooths over, or distorts and (2) the crucial instances where Collingwood’s assertions directly contradict this interpretation. A tertiary motive of the inquiry is to foster or at least facilitate a paradigm shift in the exegesis of the theory of re-enactment. Among many others, one vector of analysis concerns detection and explication of the diverse types of metaphysical impossibility that Collingwood’s theory entrains. Another vector involves both the defence and supersession of certain elements of the prior consensual interpretation that the current consensual interpretation mistakenly claims to have refuted.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".