Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il s’agira ici d’analyser les enjeux philosophiques de la correspondance de G. E. Lessing et M. Mendelssohn sur la tragédie. En fait, trois ordres de problèmes, distincts mais complémentaires, structurent cet effort de philosopher en commun : une réflexion proprement esthétique sur la nature des passions impliquées dans le spectacle tragique et sur la fonction de la tragédie, un questionnement sur la structure du Mitleiden tragique, et enfin, une réflexion éthique sur la nature de l’action et de la sensibilité morales. Trois étapes scandent ce débat : d’abord, la réponse de Lessing à Friedrich Nicolai, qui lui permet de poser sa théorie de la tragédie ; ensuite, l’échange entre Lessing et Mendelssohn sur le rôle de la pitié et de l’admiration dans la tragédie, d’une part, et sur la capacité de la tragédie à contribuer à former la sensibilité morale, d’autre part ; enfin, une réflexion plus large sur la nature des passions en général et de la pitié en particulier. Au fil de ces échanges, ce sont en même temps deux conceptions concurrentes de la fonction sociale et morale de l’art qui se précisent.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".