MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156049942 · doi:10.7202/009569ar

Spinoza et le problème de l’intentionnalité

2002· article· fr· W2156049942 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elhanan Yakira

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophiques · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'auteur propose une lecture de Spinoza à la lumière de la notion husserlienne d'intentionnalité.Il essaie de trouver un point commun aux deux systèmes afin de montrer la très grande originalité de la théorie de la vérité et de la signification de Spinoza qui rejette la primauté de la notion d'intentionnalité.ABSTRACT.-This article proposes to read Spinoza in light of Husserl's notion of intentionality.It tries to find a common ground between the two systems, in order to show that Spinoza's theory of truth and of sense is highly original in its implicit rejection of the primordiality of the notion of intentionality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.010 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophiquesSame topicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207