Penser les liens entre éthique et politique de la littérature : un dialogue entre Martha Nussbaum et Jacques Rancière
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se propose de comparer la politique de la littérature de Jacques Rancière et l’éthique de la littérature de Martha Nussbaum. Il s’agit d’éclairer comment ces deux approches de la littérature, même si elles s’ancrent dans des traditions théoriques différentes, se recoupent grâce à l’idée fondamentale selon laquelle la littérature serait l’occasion d’acquérir des connaissances pratiques. La lecture littéraire, chez Rancière comme chez Nussbaum, permet d’affiner notre attention au monde et met ainsi en jeu la perceptibilité des sujets. En cela, ils affirment tous deux avec force que la littérature, loin d’être coupée du monde, n’a de sens qu’au coeur même de l’existence, puisque le texte situe le lecteur devant l’altérité et l’enjoint silencieusement à pratiquer l’attention délicate qui incombe à ceux et celles qui souhaitent vivre ensemble.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".