MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151404325 · doi:10.7202/018571ar

Pour une philosophie « illustre ». L’honnesteté cardinale des Essais de Montaigne

2008· article· fr· W2151404325 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mawy Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueTangence · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le présent article, l’auteure s’interroge sur la stratégie rhétorique à l’oeuvre dans les Essais , une stratégie que l’histoire littéraire passe souvent sous silence, tant cette idée selon laquelle Montaigne chercherait à valider son identité de gentilhomme est bien implantée dans la critique. On propose ici que, dans les Essais , la persona aristocratique relève plutôt d’une démarche rhétorique très cohérente visant à susciter l’identification du lecteur noble avec l’auteur s’exprimant au « je » et grâce à laquelle l’étude philosophique n’apparaît plus comme l’apanage du bourgeois « à longue robe ».

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTangenceSame topicFrench Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207