Bibliographic record
Abstract
Récemment, plusieurs commentateurs ont manifesté un intérêt renouvelé pour la théorie hégélienne de l’action. Certes, ces auteurs se sont intéressés à divers aspects de cette théorie, mais un des éléments qui a fait l’objet de vifs débats est celui du statut que Hegel assigne à l’intention dans l’évaluation de l’agir humain. Cet article est consacré à ce débat entre les tenants d’une interprétation selon laquelle Hegel défend une conception « rétrospective » de l’intention et ceux qui soutiennent qu’il maintient une conception qui se situe plutôt dans le prolongement des théories de type « causalistes » des rapports entre intention et action. En fin de parcours, nous nous employons à faire valoir l’hypothèse suivante : certains aspects de la théorie hégélienne de l’action trouvent leur modèle dans l’interprétation qu’il a proposée de la conception tragique de l’agir.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".