Du Discours sur l’Inégalité à l’Émile : le parcours anthropologique de Rousseau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le point de départ de cette étude est un passage de la préface du Discours sur l'Inégalité, passage qui, quoique souligné par Rousseau, n'a pas longtemps retenu l'attention des commentateurs. Il s'agit du texte suivant : « ... une bonne solution du problème suivant ne me paraîtrait pas indigne des Aristotes et des Plines de notre siècle : Quelles expériences seraient nécessaires pour parvenir à connaître l'homme naturel? et quels sont les moyens de faire ces expériences au sein de la société? ». La lecture du Manuscrit Favre, où l'on retrouve les mêmes interrogations, nous autorise à voir dans l'Emile la solution de Rousseau au problème posé et à mieux saisir les limites du Second Discours en tant que discours anthropologique.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".