Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte vise a explorer la contribution de Paul Ricœur a une reflexion phenomenologique sur le vivant. Il s’agit notamment, a partir du debat avec Jean-Pierre Changeux, de faire ressortir l’insistance avec laquelle il s’efforce de distinguer l’approche phenomenologique du vecu de l’approche objectivante des sciences du vivant, de facon a soutenir la these d’un dualisme semantique entre les deux ordres de discours. Tout le travail de Ricœur est alors d’ouvrir le discours philosophique a l’apport des sciences de la vie, sans soumettre le projet phenomenologique a une naturalisation. Contrairement a Jean-Luc Petit, qui voit dans la phenomenologie eidetique de la volonte du jeune Ricœur ce qu’il y a de plus prometteur pour aborder la question du vivant, nous soutenons plutot que la position originale de Ricœur sur le vivant se laisse comprendre a partir de sa triple allegeance a la phenomenologie, a l’hermeneutique et a la philosophie reflexive.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".