Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kant's engagement with the Berlin Academy has primarily been studied on two accounts.First, his prize essay submitted for the Academy's competition on the comparison between mathematical and metaphysical truths, for which he was awarded the accessit, has drawn considerable attention.This essay anticipates aspects of his critical philosophy, particularly themes later developed in the Doctrine of Method within the Critique of Pure Reason, regarding the nature of philosophical and mathematical reasoning.As such, the 1763 essay stands out as one of Kant's most thoroughly studied pre-critical works.1 Second, scholars have also focused on Kant's 1793/95 manuscripts addressing the Academy's prize question on the progress of metaphysics.These writings represent one of his final reflections on the possibility of metaphysics and offer insights into the trajectory of his critical philosophy within the historical development of metaphysics.2Even on these occasions, the focus has typically remained on Kant himself, rather than on his relationship with the Berlin Academy, either as an institution or in connection with its individual members.This is unfortunate, as it is well known that Kant held many Academy members in high regard, such as Maupertuis, Euler, Sulzer, and Lambert.More broadly, Kant's connection with the Berlin Academy was extensive, multiple, and dates to the earliest years of his philosophical career.Beyond the two well-known prize competitions of 1763 and 1795, numerous Kantian texts are tied to the Academy's activities.His Physical Monadology of 1756, for example, was written a few years after the Academy's 1747 prize competition on monads and clearly aimed to contribute to the discussions that emerged from that contest.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
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".