Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of my study of Camus is twofold. The first aspect concerns the content of his books, the second their formal structure or organization. In contrast to much current scholarship, which interprets Camus' primary concerns as modern and even post-modern, I argue that his ambition runs in the opposite direction historically: Camus' principal aim is to articulate a Greek anthropology and political philosophy. This positive ambition has a critical component as well. Camus's Hellenism is formulated in part through a critical engagement with modernity and an exploration of its Christian origins. The second aim of my study is to explore the structure of Camus' corpus. The fact that Camus organized his books into several different stages or "cycles" is well known and often discussed by commentators in the context of other interpretive matters. However, it is rarely examined in its own right and almost never interpreted in detail. The most common way that it is understood is as straight autobiography. In this view the absurd, rebellion, and love - the guiding themes of the three principal cycles of Camus' books - are understood as stages in his personal philosophical development. The account contradicts Camus' own explicit statements about the allegedly autobiographical character of his work and skirts the fundamental question of interpretation by assuming that it has already been answered. Contrary to this account I argue that the organization of Camus' books is an intentional literary device that contributes significantly to our understanding of the content of his work. My study amounts to new interpretation of Camus that hopefully will open up new and fruitful avenues of research regarding his accomplishments as a philosopher and writer.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".