MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997455374 · doi:10.7202/014959ar

Antonio Rocco, Alcibiade enfant à l’école. Clandestinité, irréligion et sodomie

2007· article· fr· W1997455374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean-Pierre Cavaillé

Bibliographic record

VenueTangence · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article est consacré à la fois à l’histoire de la publication clandestine d’Alcibiade enfant à l’école, du xviie siècle à nos jours, et à l’analyse de son dispositif fictionnel et de ses ressources argumentatives. L’ouvrage relate en effet l’entreprise de séduction amoureuse et sexuelle d’un maître de philosophie sur son jeune élève, Alcibiade, fondée sur la persuasion et l’efficacité d’une argumentation idoine, où la philosophie joue un rôle déterminant : un rationalisme foncièrement naturaliste au service d’une éthique résolument hédoniste. Par l’étroite association d’une initiation sexuelle et d’un apprentissage philosophique, ce livre contribue ainsi à la constitution d’un genre qui trouvera une expression ultérieure dans la Satire sotadique de Chorier (ou Académie des dames), Thérèse philosophe et les romans de Sade. On se propose ici de réfléchir sur le sens de la clandestinité de cette oeuvre envisagée au premier chef dans sa composition même, comme discours puissamment transgressif, tout à la fois du fait de ses modes d’écriture, de sa représentation des moeurs et des idées exprimées, et rendu attractif pour ces raisons, mais contenant aussi en lui-même les modalités de son acceptabilité restreinte, comme un livret inoffensif de simple divertissement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTangenceSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207