De la mécanique du bonheur à la mécanique de la mort : Réflexions critiques sur quelques paradigmes du développement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Just as reflection on international development is suffering from a certain shortness of breath, so are the dynamics of technico-industrial growth becoming weaker. This study seeks to demonstrate how this double falling off originates in the weaknesses manifest in the energy reasonings of the mechanical logic which latter directs the ideology and the material basis of economic and social development. After having first summarized the classical'paradigm of mechanical growth, the study recapitulates the principal argumentation of the theoretical model of the thermodynamicists of development and of their critique of the classical paradigm. The study also stresses how both eliminate from their analyses of the process of the economic ans social development of nations that human energy of the unexpected and the contradictory that is born of the meeting of multiple historical experiences, of the impacting of the « similar » and the « different » and which produces, as the ultimate mutation, the ecumenical history of the international dynamic. The perspective brought to the area of study may be summarized therefore by this question both so simple and at the same time so complicated: how does one sustain the diversity of cultures, respect the experience of Others, live with them without reducing them to silence, without co- opting them, without thinking that all the roads of History lead toward us.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".