MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157265442 · doi:10.7202/1010214ar

Boèce, Porphyre et les variétés de l’abstractionnisme

2012· article· fr· W2157265442 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Marenbon

Bibliographic record

VenueLaval théologique et philosophique · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Philosophy and Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selon Alain de Libera, Boèce donne au célèbre questionnaire de Porphyre sur les universaux une réponse abstractionniste : ce n’est que dans la pensée que peuvent exister les universaux, quoiqu’ils dérivent, par le processus d’abstraction, de ce qui est commun dans les choses. Je mets en contraste cet « abstractionnisme neutre » et un « abstractionnisme réaliste » selon lequel ce n’est qu’en concevant les universaux que la pensée humaine saisit proprement la forme — ou similitude — par laquelle les particuliers appartiennent à telle espèce ou à tel genre. J’essaie de démontrer que, dans son second commentaire sur l’ Isagoge , Boèce hésite entre les deux sortes d’abstractionnisme, tandis que, dans la Consolation , il opte pour l’abstractionnisme réaliste.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.236 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaval théologique et philosophiqueSame topicClassical Philosophy and ThoughtFrench-language works237,207