MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966814519 · doi:10.7202/040232ar

L’usage de la notion d’ontologie dans la philosophie politique de Charles Taylor

2008· article· fr· W1966814519 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dalie Giroux

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitique et Sociétés · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFoucault, Power, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Charles Taylor suggère aux philosophes politiques un retour à la discussion ontologique. Il faut, selon lui, retourner aux fondements des prescriptions politiques et discuter des valeurs qui guident constitutivement nos choix. Cette suggestion trouve son origine dans la conception de l’horizon de signification que défend C. Taylor. Pourtant, cette conception ne permet pas de comprendre comment les valeurs contraignent moralement les êtres humains, sauf si on lui juxtapose l’idée d’instinct moral qui ne se justifie qu’a posteriori, c’est-à-dire en regard d’une certaine nécessité.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.031
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitique et SociétésSame topicFoucault, Power, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207