MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056557232 · doi:10.7202/602440ar

Néantisation et relationalité chez NISHIDA Kitarô et WATSUJI Tetsurô

2009· article· fr· W2056557232 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThéologiques · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le néant absolu (zettai mu) a suscité divers types de discours dans la philosophie japonaise contemporaine, notamment celui de la relationalité, dont traitent principalement NISHIDA Kitarô (1870-1945) et WATSUJI Tetsurô (1889-1960). Nishida met en lumière le lien intrinsèque entre le néant absolu et la relationalité en montrant que l’individuel (kobutsu) est tel uniquement par le fait de se confronter à un autre individuel, et que cette confrontation est un processus de néantisation absolue par lequel l’individuel renvoie constamment à l’autre, ce qui permet en retour une auto-affirmation absolue. Le néant absolu est également le fondement de la structure relationnelle de Watsuji, qui fait l’originalité de son éthique. L’humain (ningen) , à la fois individuel et social, comporte une négation par laquelle il nie l’ensemble de l’humanité, se constituant ainsi comme individu et comme société. Tant la philosophie de Nishida que celle de Watsuji convergent vers le néant absolu et s’articulent autour de lui.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.249 · 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