Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’inspire de la sociologie historique de Max Weber afin de : 1) dégager les conditions de possibilité sociales de l’expression des passions humaines ; et 2) identifier les acteurs, les intérêts et les institutions qui façonnent l’expression contemporaine des passions politiques et les formes de violence concomitantes. Dans sa Sociologie de la musique , Weber (1921) démontre que l’expression de la passion est soumise à des conditions de possibilité inhérentes à une rationalité parfaitement impersonnelle et que la rationalité propre à la musique occidentale est le produit des intérêts matériels et idéels d’une couche sociale particulière ainsi que des moyens techniques à sa disposition. Cet article s’appuie sur cet aperçu wébérien afin de proposer un ancrage sociologique et historique à l’analyse des passions politiques de la contemporanéité. Si le biopouvoir actuel façonne l’expression des passions et les canalise vers de nouvelles formes de violence, les technès de pouvoir seuls ne peuvent expliquer le devenir des passions humaines. L’article expose comment la gouvernementalité contemporaine repose non seulement sur un régime de véridiction logiquement cohérent, mais sur des acteurs sociaux particuliers partageant des intérêts et des institutions.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".