MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063346965 · doi:10.7202/017490ar

Penser la mort, comme travail et comme besoin

2008· article· fr· W2063346965 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diane Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontières · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les objets de nos pensées nous fascinent. Il nous devient alors plus difficile d’observer le processus même qui nous permet de penser ainsi que le travail d’abstraction et de condensation qu’il requiert. Par ailleurs, l’expérience que nous faisons de notre capacité de penser se vit comme un besoin, qu’il s’agisse du besoin de penser ou de celui d’arrêter de penser! La mort peut parfois faire l’objet de nos pensées, penser à la mort ou penser la mort peut parfois être expérimenté comme un besoin ; mais, ultimement, ce qui fait que nous soyons en train de penser, c’est que nous sommes engagés sans réserve dans l’activité qui consiste à vivre.

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 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)0.002
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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.008

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.311 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontièresSame topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchFrench-language works237,207