Bibliographic record
Abstract
On nous a habitue, dans les etudes husserliennes, a traiter de la question du rapport de la phenomenologie des Recherches logiques a Brentano dans la perspective de la critique que Husserl adresse a la theorie immanentiste de l’intentionnalite dans cet ouvrage*. Mais cette perspective laisse dans l’ombre un enjeu fondamental de la question qui sous-tend les discussions de Husserl dans la § 15 de la cinquieme Recherche et dans l’Appendice au deuxieme volume de l’ouvrage, a savoir ce que j’appellerai par commodite la these du caractere coextensif de la conscience, de l’intentionnalite et de la pensee. Je voudrais montrer que la critique que Husserl adresse a cette these s’appuie sur la distinction introduite dans ses premiers travaux a Halle entre les actes et les contenus sensibles ou contenus primaires, plus precisement entre deux classes au sein de l’experience sensible, la premiere correspondant aux phenomenes psychiques de Brentano, l’autre, qui n’est pas intentionnelle, correspond a ce qu’il est maintenant convenu d’appeler la conscience ou l’experience phenomenale. Pour ce faire, j’examinerai la critique de la theorie de la perception de Brentano (uniquement celle de sa Psychologie de 1874) dans la premiere edition des Recherches logiques ainsi que dans un traite sur la perception publie recemment sous le titre de « Abhandlung uber Wahrnehmung von 1898 » qui etait vraisemblablement destine a la deuxieme serie des Recherches logiques1. 1. Phenomenologie et contenus
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".