Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé.Prenant le contre-pied des critiques de l'œuvre d'Hannah Arendt lui reprochant de dépeindre des acteurs uniformes et superficiels et de promouvoir une sphère politique caractérisée par la vacuité, le présent article présente la pensée d'Arendt dans les termes d'une discussion continuelle sur le thème de la puissance et de l'impuissance, de la participation et de l'exclusion. De ce point de vue et malgré le mépris apparent de cette auteure pour la misère, l'article soutient qu'une préoccupation à l'égard de l'exclusion radicale est non seulement possible dans une perspective arendtienne, mais qu'elle est mêmerequise. Abstract.Contrasting with critics of Hannah Arendt who assume that the political actors she describes are uniform and superficial, and the political sphere she promotes, empty, this article presents Arendt's thinking as an ongoing discussion on power and powerlessness, on participation and exclusion. From this standpoint and in spite of the author's apparent despise for misery, this article contends that, from an arendtian perspective, a concern for contemporary radical exclusion is not only possible, butrequired.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".