Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of what is distinctively human poses a problem today, in view of the results of disciplines such as ethology and paleoanthropology. Man can be understood as a biological, cultural, and political animal. In order to grasp what 'the human' is today, this paper examines the relationship between hominization and humanization. The convergence of these phenomena places the human identity in the space between the two poles of the biological and what we might call the extra- biological, including culture and politics. The paper's starting point is the idea that the specificity of the human animal is to have created a virtual home for itself, via the indefinite expansion of the extra- biological dimension of its existence. The question arises as to whether this process of humanization has been succesful, given that it has yielded not only the distinctively human triumphs of science and technology, but also the distinctively inhuman disasters of the 20th century. Human beings seem incapable of mastering the extra-biological dimension of their own nature. There is therefore a pressing need for an ethical analysis of the twin processes of hominization and humanization. The connection between hominization and humanization is the junction between the biological and the extra-biological. The challenge we face in trying to understand the articulation of these two trajectories is that one is much more easily identifiable than the other. We are all certain of being human rather than non-human, because we are all succesful products of the process of hominization, but no one is ever sure of being irreversibly human rather than inhuman, because the process of humanization is based on contingent and variable social and cultural principles. This paper analyzes this difficulty with the aim of identifying the fundamental elements that will contribute to the development of an ethic of hominization. Notre demarche consistera a relever des elements susceptibles de servir de base a ce que nous appelons une ethique de l'hominisation 1 . Pourquoi entreprendre une telle demarche et choisir le concept d'hominisation, appartenant essentiellement a l'anthropologie biologique et la paleoanthropologie ? Parce que de l'hominisation emerge l'ambigu et complexe processus de l'humanisation. Cette emergence, definissant essentiellement l'humain, pose probleme car elle ne se distingue pas facilement et requiert toute une approche pluridisciplinaire. Notre projet n'est pas de decouvrir, dans une certaine naivete, ce qu'est l'humain - la tâche serait impossible - mais de determiner quels sont les facteurs a l'œuvre dans la dynamique hominisation/humanisation et pourquoi ils suscitent un questionnement ethique. L'etre humain est animal. L'evidence de cette assertion repose sur des postulats complexes. L'animal humain releve d'une speciation zoologique qui a abouti a l'apparition d'Homo sapiens sapiens. Son evolution nous renvoie, d'un cote, a l'idee d'un processus biologique, denominateur commun avec le monde animal et, de l'autre, a l'idee de tout un complexe extra-biologique 2 , comprenant le culturel et le politique. Ce
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".