MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561330185 · doi:10.7202/1044410ar

La pensée romantique, une révolution des idées

2016· article· fr· W2561330185 on OpenAlex
Gérard Wormser

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSens public · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entre 1770 et 1800 se diffuse en Allemagne un ensemble de réflexions concernant l’art et la subjectivité. C’est la philosophie du romantisme. Elle amorce la transformation révolutionnaire européenne. L’essor intellectuel allemand commence par un dialogue avec les Lumières françaises chez Lessing, Herder et leurs successeurs avant de s’infléchir en une réflexion sur l’originalité des expressions culturelles. Radicalisée par Kant, Schelling ou Goethe, cette pensée de la subjectivité, où l’esthétique voisine avec la morale et la métaphysique, englobe la littérature, la philosophie et la religion. Par ses aspirations comme par ses conséquences, elle a modelé la modernité et a ouvert la voie aux formes d’action communicationnelle de cénacles spécialisés dont nos interactions numériques ont retrouvé le fil. Après ce premier article présentant ce mouvement culturel européen, un second traitera de la philosophie du romantisme allemand et de sa transformation académique avant qu’un troisième esquisse le passage de la dialectique au numérique.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.069 · 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