Comment trouver un équilibre entre l'historicisme et l'universalisme ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La pensée taylorienne se situe à mi-chemin entre l’historicisme et l’universalisme. En même temps qu’elle enracine l’homme dans un contexte culturel, elle milite en faveur d’un dialogue entre cultures dont la visée est l’atteinte de vérités objectives. Pour avoir mis l’accent, ici sur le rôle du contexte social, là sur l’importance de faire dialoguer les cultures, Taylor s’est attiré plus d’une objection. Ainsi, quand on ne l’accusa pas d’échouer à contourner le relativisme, on désavoua son projet de dialogue interculturel. Qu’en est-il donc de ces objections ? Atteignent-elles efficacement leur cible ou, au contraire, la ratent-elles ? Que la pensée taylorienne effleure le relativisme tout en parvenant à l’éviter, du moins dans ses intentions, et non sans difficultés, voilà l’idée que nous nous efforcerons de défendre ici, en plus de proposer une réflexion critique sur la portée, l’incidence et l’impact possibles de cette pensée.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| 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".