Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé. La réflexion offerte dans cet essai s'inscrit dans une entreprise d'approfondissement de la compréhension générale que nous avons de l'activité politique (parler, écrire, revendiquer, mettre en scène), et particulièrement de la relation que cette activité entretient avec l'idée de l'émancipation. Plus précisément, il s'agit de prendre pour objet d'exploration théorique le fait de parole, défini en termes d'articulation performative des espaces-temps humains, et d'en faire le paradigme de toute action politique. L'analyse de ce paradigme, au terme, permettra de pointer vers une matière utopique qui se qualifie à la fois comme événement et comme permanence du commun. Abstract. In this article, the author seeks a better understanding of the modalities of political action (speaking, writing, claming, staging), and more specifically of the relation between political action and the idea of emancipation. To do so, the author proposes that the speech act, comprehended as the performed articulation of lived space/time, is to be taken as the paradigm of political action. Further analysis of this paradigm, as developed in the article, compels the manifestation of a philosophical object which qualifies both as event and as the manifestation of the perennially of the common.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".