MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018238700 · doi:10.7202/018801ar

Du (dé)bris symbolique

2008· article· fr· W2018238700 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guillaume Asselin

Bibliographic record

VenueProtée · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On a l’habitude, lorsqu’on s’attarde au symbole, de faire porter l’attention sur le « rejointement » des deux moitiés de l’objet brisé (tablette, anneau ou cube) auquel renvoie étymologiquement le sumbolon . On occulte, du coup, l’instant dia-bolique de la déchirure ou de la brisure, qui semble ne conditionner l’acte de suture symbolique que pour en signer simultanément la ruine, que matérialise ce qui tombe hors de son règne sous la forme d’un reste ou d’un débris opaque résistant à la signification, analogue au caput mortuum des alchimistes. Il s’agira donc de s’interroger sur l’incongru foisonnement des vestiges qui affluent sur la scène de la littérature contemporaine et se distribuent autour de la fêlure du symbole. J’analyserai, en me basant essentiellement sur l’oeuvre de Pascal Quignard, la nature et la fonction de ce qui fourmille ainsi sur les bords du symbole sous des noms divers : « skybala », « sordidissimes », « miroboles » ou « significe » qui tous sont à mettre au compte de cet « impossible-à-sauver » dont parle Benjamin et commandent, à ce titre, d’explorer le lien entre ce qu’on peut qualifier de « souffrance du symbole » et la pensée sacrificielle.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.008

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProtéeSame topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchFrench-language works237,207