MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314197193 · doi:10.7202/203259ar

Marx : entre l’idéalisme radical et l’individualisme anarchique

2007· article· fr· W2314197193 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ulysses Santamaría, Alain Manville

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophiques · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si Marx aujourd'hui doit retrouver la radicalité qui a porté en ses premiers commencements sa pensée révolutionnaire, il faut rompre définitivement avec les évidences les mieux établies de son interprétation. La pensée de Marx, loin de pouvoir être rattachée au sol du matérialisme, s'enracine au plus profond de l'idéalisme allemand dans ce mouvement de pensée qui vient contester en ses fondements ultimes la métaphysique et son ordre, l'ordre d'un entendement captif de l'horizon borné de la positivité. Pensée de subversion de l'ordre de la positivité, la pensée de Marx se laisse alors définir comme un mouvement de déstabilisation du monde, mise en abyme de son fondement. Cette disqualification an-archique de l'arche est au principe de la pensée de la révolution radicale et de la mise en question fondamentale du pouvoir. Dans l'espace ouvert par cette double Bestimmung, idéaliste, an-archique, la pensée de Marx, en opposition à toute interprétation qui y voit une pensée du social, définit un individualisme radical qui se veut la critique absolue de toute volonté d'édification d'un nouvel ordre, individualisme qui ne laisse plus rien prévaloir qui fasse violence à la valeur de sens de l'autonomie.

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)0.004
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.031
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophiquesSame topicPhilosophical and Theoretical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207