Bibliographic record
Abstract
On trouve une contradiction essentielle de notre temps qui, d’un côté nie la pensée magique, les croyances religieuses et veut se débarrasser des mythes, et d’un autre côté ne fait que s’en reconstituer de nouveaux comme le fait Yves Bonnefoy avec Rimbaud ou, jadis, Sartre avec le communisme. Mais nos nouvelles croyances, aussi implicites et cachées qu’elles puissent être, nous coûtent très cher puisqu’elles nous assujettissent, que nous le voulions ou non, à de nouveaux préceptes et à de nouvelles idoles qu’il ne faut pas remettre en question. Comment est-il possible d’être raisonnable dans un tel tissus de contradictions ? On comprend finalement la position cynique de Michel Foucault : au moins sait-on de quoi il retourne, le raisonnable est réduit à sa position la plus simple et apparemment la plus évidente. « Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien » comme le disait également Ivan Illich.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".