MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021020358 · doi:10.7202/027472ar

Réflexion complice et réflexion purifiante chez Sartre et Heidegger

2007· article· fr· W2021020358 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antoine Hatzenberger

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophiques · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A plusieurs reprises, mais de manière assez allusive, Sartre, dans L'être et le néant, met en cause une perspective éthique inavouée à l'oeuvre dans Etre et temps. Ne peut-on, à partir de cette critique fragmentée de Heidegger, saisir les jeux de miroir qui existent entre ces deux oeuvres ? Ne doit-on pas interpréter ce mouvement de distanciation comme une tentative désespérée de différer le problème moral ? Une lecture conjointe de L'être et le néant et de Etre et temps centrée sur la distinction entre réflexion complice et réflexion pure ne permet-elle pas d'entrevoir les difficultés que pose à l'ontologie phénoménologique la question de l'éthique ?

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.043
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.262
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophiquesSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207