MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120194100 · doi:10.7202/017462ar

Les ruines du progrès chez Walter Benjamin

2008· article· fr· W2120194100 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean‐François Hamel

Bibliographic record

VenueProtée · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicWalter Benjamin Studies Compilation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans ses thèses sur le concept d’histoire, Walter Benjamin a créé, s’inspirant de l’Angelus Novus de Klee, une allégorie désormais célèbre. Le progrès, depuis la perspective de l’Ange de l’histoire, ne donnerait à voir qu’une catastrophe interminable et un amoncellement indéfini de ruines. Pour saisir dans toute son ampleur la genèse culturelle de cette allégorie et sa signification politique, il est nécessaire de la resituer au coeur du projet d’une archéologie du xixe siècle français dont nous sont parvenus les fragments du Livre des passages et d’en reconnaître les sources littéraires. À la lumière du topos des ruines futures de Paris tel qu’il apparaît dans L’An 2440 de Mercier et Le Dernier Homme de Grainville, ainsi que de la philosophie bergsonienne à travers laquelle Benjamin définit la crise de l’expérience propre à la modernité, on peut relire l’allégorie des ruines du progrès et y découvrir, au-delà du nouage entre marxisme et messianisme, une critique des effets mémoriels pathologiques de l’anticipation futuriste. S’esquisse alors une politique du présent qui prend le contre-pied d’une mélancolie induite selon Benjamin par la pensée progressiste.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.163 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProtéeSame topicWalter Benjamin Studies CompilationFrench-language works237,207