Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sous le theme de la « methode », l’auteur se propose de formuler une ethique de la lecture a partir de Gilles Deleuze. L’analyse est fondee sur un dedoublement de la lecture : d’abord la lecture qu’a fait Deleuze de David Hume tel qu’exprime dans Empirisme et subjectivite (1953) et celle de Henri Bergson dans Le bergsonisme (1966), ensuite par la lecture que l’auteur fait de ces deux livres de Deleuze. Par l’entremise de l’empirisme (Hume) et de l’intuition (Bergson), l’auteur conclut que la lecture que Deleuze a faite est performative en ce sens qu’elle fait ce qu’elle enonce. Une ethique de la lecture correspondante se voudra donc, de meme, performative : elle depassera le donne a travers le delire, s’ouvrira a l’inhumain et au surhumain a travers le virtuel.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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; 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".