MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106764863 · doi:10.7202/001721ar

Sagesse, folie et bonheur en Qohélet 10,1

2009· article· fr· W2106764863 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean-Jacques Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueThéologiques · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qo 10,1 est un texte qui ne nécessite aucune correction textuelle. Du point de vue de l’analyse structurelle, Qo 9,18b-10,1a est un commentaire critique de Qo 9,18a, tandis que Qo 10,1b s’oppose à Qo 9,17. L’idée dominante de ce verset peut se résumer comme suit : Qo 10,1 relativise la valeur traditionnelle de la sagesse. Plus précisément, Qo 9,18b-10,1a évoque le monde politico-militaire qui a le pouvoir de détruire le bonheur, tandis que Qo 10,1b souligne qu’un peu de folie a plus de valeur que la sagesse et la gloire. Le mot clé est ici m‘t , « un peu ». Il rappelle, non sans ironie, que ni la sagesse ni la folie ne peuvent garantir le bonheur et la sécurité (cf. Qo 7,16-17).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThéologiquesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207