La communauté et son dehors. Pour une critique des représentations du lien fondées sur l'individualisme ou le sociologisme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'article, à partir d'un retour sur quelques-uns des textes fondateurs de la sociologie, essaie, en s'appuyant notamment sur Toc-queville, de sortir de l'alternative entre individualisme et sociologisme, afin d'aborder la communauté dans un rapport d'écart (d'en-dehors) à elle-même. L'écart critique, né de l'activité publique des hommes ensemble, suspend, en effet, tant l'illusion de la suffisance individuelle que celle de la toute-puissance d'assignation de la société. Dans un second moment, l'article tente d'actualiser les débats du siècle dernier en faisant appel aux réflexions contemporaines sur la communauté. À partir d'une confrontation avec la représentation du lien dans la sociologie de Pierre Bourdieu, il esquisse quelques pistes théoriques qui mettent l'activité critique et la prise de parole au cœur de l'enjeu communautaire, en s'appuyant notamment sur le travail de Jacques Rancière.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".