La religion, et l’opposition sacré et profane, dans les Diuinae institutiones de Lactance : les limites d’une dichotomie moderne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les Diuinae institutiones de Lactance sont souvent citées lorsqu’il s’agit d’analyser le passage du mot religio de la langue latine à la pensée du christianisme. On ne doit toutefois pas lire ce texte du ive siècle de notre ère avec la conception moderne du mot religion. Les sociologues du xxe siècle ont élaboré des définitions de la religion à partir de l’opposition sacré/profane, mais cette dichotomie n’est toutefois pas une catégorie interprétative valide dans l’ouvrage de Lactance. Non seulement il oppose ces deux notions que très rarement, mais la conception de sacer et de profanus diffère des définitions qui se sont imposées depuis un siècle. L’utilisation de concepts modernes pour l’analyse des Diuinae institutiones constitue dès lors un frein à la compréhension des notions de religion, sacré et profane dans l’ouvrage de Lactance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".