Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans L'illusion philosophique, son tout premier livre paru en 1936, Jeanne Hersch retrace les principales étapes de l'histoire de la philosophie occidentale selon l'hypothèse de la destruction progressive et nécessaire par la philosophie de sa propre illusion fondatrice. Je propose d'élargir cette perspective en montant que l'inhérence de l'illusion à la spéculation philosophique tient au rôle primordial qu'y joue l'imagination symbolique, dont le refoulement par la pensée directe, pour laquelle opta graduellement l'Occident, sous-tend et scande l'histoire de la destruction de l'illusion philoso- phique. Cette enquête m'achemine à la philosophie kantienne qui, en même temps qu'elle accomplit la dernière étape de cette histoire, en appelle cependant, notamment dans la Critique de la Faculté de Juger, à une réhabilitation philosophique du symbolisme, dont Kant semble avoir attendu, à la fin, une représentation de ce qui répondrait à la question : « Was darf ich hoffen ? ».
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".