Ånden, mellem fjelde, is og sne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teksten her tager udgangspunkt i G.W.F. Hegels (1770-1831) Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. Jeg vil særligt interessere mig for kapitlet Die Zauberei. Her benytter Hegel sig af to kilder til at beskrive Inuit-folkenes forhold til deres verden. Disse kilder er de to kaptajner John Ross og William Parry, som begge var omdiskuterede personligheder i deres samtid. Hegel bruger disse kilder forholdsvist ukritisk til at kunne opbygge et empirisk korpus til sin teori. Ud fra det vil teksten have 3 ærinde: 1. At spørge, hvad empiriens rolle for Hegels tænkning er? 2. Hvad gør det ved teorien, når kilderne er mangelfulde? Og til sidst 3. indirekte vise forskelle mellem filosofiske og idéhistoriske spørgemåder.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.018 |
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".