Bibliographic record
Abstract
La disponibilité de l’ensemble de l’oeuvre de Simmel permet de poser derechef la question des malentendus que le relâchement manifeste de sa forme scientifique n’a pas manqué de causer. Une telle réflexion ne se borne évidemment pas à l’aspect extérieur de ses textes, mais fournit l’occasion de s’interroger sur son style de pensée et, par là, sur l’intention fondamentale de son oeuvre, qui engage un rapport constant de la sociologie à la philosophie. On procédera ici en trois étapes. D’abord, un repérage dans le corpus s’impose pour trouver les aspects incriminés. Puis on posera la question du rapport de la forme à la carrière de Simmel, à sa pratique du séminaire ; à sa conception de la sociologie centrée sur les « formes de socialisation » ; et à la nature de l’essai, notamment en contraste avec les conceptions d’Adorno. Enfin, son rapport au langage sera interrogé, dans sa motivation philosophique, qui montre clairement pourquoi, aux yeux de Simmel, la question de la forme scientifique est secondaire par rapport au sens du problème.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".