MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035782676 · doi:10.7202/027369ar

Le sublime et la fiction

2007· article· fr· W2035782676 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter J. McCormick

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophiques · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSublimeHumanitiesArtPhilosophyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Il y a des oeuvres d'art poétiques, et en particulier quelques poèmes modernistes, qui nous offrent des représentations du sublime dans un de ses aspects les plus problématiques. Cet aspect comporte la simultanéité des éléments à la fois subjectifs et objectifs. Mais comment peut-on comprendre le sublime sous ce double masque ? Comment se fait-il que le sublime puis- se être à la/ois objectif et subjectif? Dans cet article je propose d'articuler ces deux aspects du sublime en ayant recours aux réflexions tardives de Kant dans son Opus postumum sur le Selbstsetzungs- lehre, sur ce que j'appellerai « une auto-position fictive ».

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)0.003
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 score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207