Abstraction et séparation : de Thomas d’Aquin aux néo-scolastiques, avec retour à Aristote et aux artiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se penche sur la doctrine de l’abstraction chez les néo-scolastiques et ses sources immédiates (Cajetan, Jean de Saint-Thomas) pour en évaluer la fidélité par rapport à ses sources ultimes (Aristote et Thomas d’Aquin), avec insistance — terminologique et conceptuelle — sur la distinction thomasienne entre abstraction et séparation (formulée, autour de 1257-1259, dans le commentaire SuperBoetium« DeTrinitate »), une distinction aussi présente dans des textes de maîtres ès arts de l’Université de Paris contemporains ou même antérieurs, une distinction capitale — est-il rappelé en conclusion — par laquelle l’Aquinate limite épistémologiquement la portée de la théologie philosophique. On prépare ainsi l’étude du témoignage jusqu’ici inédit des Communia logice (vers 1250) sur ce thème de l’abstraction et de la séparation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".