MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976763989 · doi:10.7202/1004021ar

Georges Bataille et la question du corps mort

2011· article· fr· W1976763989 on OpenAlex
Gilles Ernst

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontières · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le mort hante l’oeuvre de Georges Bataille (1897-1962). Il y fait l’objet d’une description volontairement provocante. La raison en est simple : il appartient au monde du sacré. D’où les deux rites – l’un, affreux, l’autre, plus attendu – marquant son apparition : la nécrophilie et la veillée mortuaire. Ces deux rites, en apparence très différents, sont en fait identiques : ils soulignent la nécessité, comme l’a enseigné Hegel, un des maîtres à penser de Bataille, de garder à l’esprit la négativité de la mort. Situé dans le contexte actuel, Bataille a donc pressenti le « déni » de la mort et du mort qui caractérise, selon les spécialistes, la société contemporaine, déni que l’auteur de l’article illustre par son expérience personnelle (cas d’un village français affecté par la « déritualisation » des funérailles). Pour remédier à cette crise, Bataille propose le maintien d’une morale où le vivant ne se détourne pas du mort.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.273 · 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