Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article poursuit la discussion inaugurée par Pierre-Marie Beaude au sujet de la distinction entre singularité et intention en esthétique considérée sous son rapport à la théologie. S’il est acquis qu’un auteur littéraire met bel et bien en oeuvre une intention, celle-ci peut différer sensiblement d’une expression de la singularité. Pour ce faire, on doit d’abord mettre au jour ce qui est à la source des deux types d’épiphanie concernés, selon les expressions consacrées de Taylor. L’expression de la singularité se fonde sur une épiphanie de l’être alors que l’intention repose sur une épiphanie de la forme. Par la suite, on peut envisager la notion d’intention du point de vue analytique en s’appuyant sur des critères linguistiques, l’intention devenant ainsi un état intentionnel et la proposition complétive qui s’y rattache, un objet intentionnel. Les attitudes propositionnelles, et en particulier l’attitude de croyance, jouent dans cette perspective un rôle premier. Cela permet de considérer le discours théologique comme un ensemble de phrases destinées à provoquer un transfert de croyance.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".