Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur rappelle tout d’abord quelques-unes des manifestations publiques de l’engouement pour l’oeuvre de Lévi-Strauss, des Tristes Tropiques à aujourd’hui, y compris le témoignage inattendu d’un garagiste. Adoptant une position résolument critique par rapport à l’entreprise structuraliste dont l’anthropologue s’est fait le porte-drapeau, il essaie d’expliquer le succès de Lévi-Strauss par les propriétés esthétiques de sa pensée. S’inspirant pour cela d’une observation de Jean Molino, il rappelle que les catégories de l’entièreté, de l’harmonie et de l’éclat se rencontrent aussi bien chez les philosophes platoniciens et néo-platoniciens que chez un esthéticien américain contemporain. Cette permanence dans le temps peut faire penser que l’on tient là quelques-unes des familles universelles qui regroupent les critères du Beau. Il montre alors qu’elles peuvent rendre compte aussi bien du mode de pensée lévi-straussien que de l’oeuvre de Richard Wagner, ce qui permet d’expliquer, du même coup, la fascination de Lévi-Strauss pour ce compositeur.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".