Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ces notes critiques soulignent la traduction récente (ou annoncée) de trois ouvrages ayant apporté une contribution majeure aux études sur Locke : La pensée politique de John Locke, de John Dunn; John Locke. Droit naturel et propriété, de James TuIIy; La politique révolutionnaire et les Deux Traités du Gouvernement de Locke, de Richard Ashcraft. Au-delà des révisions importantes qu’ils suggèrent quant aux interprétations libérale ou marxiste de la pensée de Locke, ces travaux illustrent de façon éloquente une façon de faire l’histoire des idées politiques. Si l’on veut retrouver la signification d’une oeuvre, on ne peut en effet se contenter de la situer par rapport à une tradition construite a posteriori ou de la rattacher, par analogie, à une structure socio-économique dont elle serait le reflet. Ce que Dunn, TuIIy et Ashcraft proposent, c’est de reconstruire les contextes politique et linguistique dans lesquels Locke a écrit, un exercice au terme duquel celui-ci émerge comme le porte-parole du calvinisme radical plutôt que comme le héraut du libéralisme bourgeois.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".