PHILOSOPHY OF CHILDHOOD AS OPPOSED TO ADULTHOOD IN LITERARY REPRESENTATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Main material presentation. The article explores how the works of authors such as J. M. Barrie, O. Vyshnia, J. Greenwood, Ye. Hutsalo, R. Dahl, S. Jamison, M. Ende, M. Kotsiubynsky, S. Coolidge, A. Lindgren, P. Myrnyi, I. Nechui-Levytskyi, E. Porter, A. de Saint-Exupéry, M. Stelmakh, M. Twain, T. Shevchenko, and A. Milne portray childhood as an ontological wholeness and a philosophical category. Special attention is paid to the phenomena of sincerity, truthfulness, and intuitive understanding of the world, which are characteristic of children. The article analyzes how literary child characters experience existential issues — death, loneliness, loss — and how these experiences shape a unique value system. Unlike the adult, who tends toward functional thinking and social roles, the child emerges as a bearer of radical openness and authentic perception. In literary texts, this is manifested through everyday situations — games, walks, interactions with adults, and observations of nature — which hold ontological depth for the child but appear routine to the adult. Conclusions. Childhood in literary texts represents a way of being in the world that challenges adult logic and rationality. In the philosophical sense, childhood embodies the potential for liberation, reevaluation, and a return to the existential foundations of human existence. Literature, in this context, becomes a space for philosophical contemplation, where childhood reveals itself as a point of departure from normative thinking and as a source of ethical and aesthetic authenticity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".