MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161210500 · doi:10.1017/s0012217310000715

La pensée sans sujet pensant

2010· article· fr· W2161210500 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogue · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPhilosophy and Theoretical Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Il existe une tradition, remontant à David Hume, qui nie que la pensée consciente requiert l’existence d’un sujet. Cette thèse, que nous appelons la thèse de la pensée sans sujet, est bien illustrée par la remarque de Lichtenberg selon laquelle Descartes ne pouvait prétendre avoir établi la certitude de «Je pense» mais uniquement celle de «Il y a de la pensée» (Es denkt). Le philosophe américain Bernard Williams a proposé un argument qui montrerait l’incohérence de la thèse de la pensée sans sujet. Mon but principal est de défendre la thèse de la pensée sans sujet en proposant une interprétation qui surmonte le problème posé par Williams.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

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 studies0.0050.020
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogueSame topicPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFrench-language works237,207