Field philosophy as a disruptive practice: between philosophical legitimacy and methodological divergence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Philosophy is today called upon to redefine its modes of intervention in order to respond to growing demands for social relevance. This article proposes a critical exploration of field philosophy, understood as a practice grounded in lived realities and developed in dialogue with field actors. Drawing on authors such as FRODEMAN, VOLLAIRE, DESPRET, BUCHANAN, and STENGERS, we show that field philosophy breaks with the speculative academic model and distinguishes itself from the objectifying methods of the social sciences through its reflexive posture, its aim of co-constructing knowledge, and its attention to the dynamics of idea appropriation. By emphasizing post-research follow-up and the empowerment of actors, we propose recognizing field philosophy as a generative, relational, and transformational practice.
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 | 0.081 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.191 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".