Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of repetition is one of the most recurrent themes covering both Eliade's scientific work and his Fantastic Tales. Given that Søren Kierkegaard was among the authors most read by Eliade, it is important to recognize that Eliade owed much to the concept of repetition originally developed by Kierkegaard. Given that, this article aims to speculate about how the Kierkegaardian concept of repetition could have affected Eliade's way of interpreting the history of religion and how it could have been a source of inspiration for him as an author of fantasy fiction. At the very beginning, the article aims to show the extent of Eliade's knowledge of Kierkegaard by briefly retracing Kierkegaard's impact on Eliade. Then it clarifies what Kierkegaard means by repetition and how this concept can be recognized as at work in Eliade as a historian of religions. With this regard, the article emphasizes two points: Eliade held firm the distinction between archaic and modern religious attitudes on the basis of the Kierkegaardian category of “the moment” as “the fullness of time,” and Eliade found in Kierkegaard the original input to think both the “unrecognizability of the miracle” and the “camouflage of the sacred.” Finally, the article aims to show the relevance of Kierkegaard's concept of repetition on Eliade's Fantastic Tales by examining a couple of them: “The Bridge” (1963) and “Incognito in Buchenwald” (1974).
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".