Bibliographic record
Abstract
Après avoir fait la distinction établie par E.D. Hirsch entre le sens d’un texte voulu par l’auteur et les diverses significations qu’il a prises au cours de l’histoire, l’auteur présente les deux lectures actuelles sur l’Idée du Bien chez Platon. La première lecture, dite non ésotériste, recourt au paradigme traditionnel de l’autarcie des dialogues, jadis établi par F. Schleiermacher pour dégager le sens voulu par Platon de ce passage de la République (VII, 502c-509c). La seconde lecture recourt à un nouveau paradigme, dit ésotériste, établi par l’École de Tübingen-Milan (Krämer, Gaiser, Szlezák, Reale) et cherche le sens voulu par Platon en recourant à son enseignement oral. L’auteur soutient que le sens de ce passage est mieux dégagé par une lecture non ésotériste, tandis que la lecture ésotériste en dégage plutôt les significations que lui ont données les disciples de Platon dans l’Ancienne Académie, tels qu’Aristote, Speusippe et Xénocrate.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".