MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080047744 · doi:10.7202/1024455ar

L’histoire intellectuelle selon Jean de Viguerie

2001· article· fr· W2080047744 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pierre Trépanier

Bibliographic record

VenueMens Revue d histoire intellectuelle et culturelle · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theory and Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les premières fois, je me crus visé pour des raisons politiques, et parce que j'étais classé à droite.Je mis longtemps à réaliser la véritable nature de ma déviation.En fait mon péché n 'était pas politique, il était métaphysique.J'étais coupable de dire que l'homme est un être pensant et croyant.-JeandeViguerie «Mais, vous croyez à la nature humaine!» se récrie l'étudiant, d'un air où se disputent la consternation et la pitié.Je débutais dans la carrière.Ce cri du cœur, inattendu et lancé en pleine classe, me désarçonna.Je ne dus pas briller.Étudiant en anthropologie, il avait bien retenu sa leçon.Les êtres humains sont différents dans l'espace et dans le temps.Comment parler dans ces conditions de nature humaine?De toute façon, ni le structuralisme, ni le marxisme ne se préoccupent des natures.Il n'empêche qu'il faut sacrifier aux droits de l'homme.Ce sont, tranche Le Petit Larousse 2001, les «droits et libertés que chaque individu possède du seul fait de sa nature humaine».H y a là comme une difficulté logique.Jean de Viguerie croit à la nature humaine.C'est un historien humaniste, au sens de l'anthropologie chrétienne, pour qui l'homme, tout homme est un corps et une âme spirituelle substantiellement

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.256 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMens Revue d histoire intellectuelle et culturelleSame topicPolitical Theory and InfluenceFrench-language works237,207