Introduction: Hartmut Rosa as a sport philosopher? Critical discussion and empirical operationalizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hartmut Rosa’s works (and particularly his examination of resonance) have enjoyed significant international dissemination since 2010. However, it must be noted that sport philosophers have largely ignored Rosa’s ideas. In our view, this lack of engagement is unfortunate given the numerous and substantial implications of Rosa’s reflections for bodily practices and sporting activities. Rosa himself sees the body (and its movement) as the primary medium through which we relate to the world. He also devotes entire chapters to sporting practice and spectacles, which he sees as privileged areas of resonance. Despite this, Rosa’s comments on sport remain mostly anecdotal within the philosophy of sport. Moreover, very few works in that academic field have questioned the concepts of resonance, alienation, and acceleration in connection to sport and physical education. This special issue aims to bridge this gap by examining Rosa’s intellectual production: Does it help to renew, solidify, and bring to the fore original reflections on the relationship among the body, others, objects, and the environment in the sporting context? The goal will be to challenge Rosa’s reflections, assess their scope, and discuss their foundations, contributions, and limitations in the philosophy of sport and its subdisciplines, such as the ethics of sport.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".