Det metafysiske, det sanselige og det etiske:nye naturforståelser hos Schelling, Humboldt og Günderrode
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around 1800, a radical turn towards nature took place on the German intellectual scene. As an important event in the history of ideas, this turn has been highly topical in contemporary philosophical, literary, and historical research. One reason for this is that the representatives of this turn developed different understandings of nature – philosophical, scientific, aesthetic and ethical – which are seen by many as possible sources of inspiration for ecocritical research. These historical insights have provided new perspectives on acute questions about humanity’s relationship with nature that the climate and biodiversity crisis has put on the agenda. In this article, we examine this turn towards nature through three romantic thinkers, who collectively represent three interrelated yet diverse contributions to the period’s relevancy in light of modern ecocritical research: F. W. J. Schelling (1775-1854), Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) og Karoline von Günderrode (1780-1806). In these three authorships, a common understanding of nature erupts in varied ways as metaphysics of nature, aesthetics of nature, and ethics of nature. We describe how each author contributes towards this novel understanding of nature, while comparing ideas, inspirations, and differences across the three.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.020 |
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 it