MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587480770 · doi:10.3917/mult.065.0090

Pour une éthique du pli

2017· article· fr· W2587480770 on OpenAlexaff
Levi R. Bryant, Frédéric Bisson

Bibliographic record

VenueMultitudes · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsECW Press (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comment se fait-il qu’un corps en vienne à penser qu’il devrait être quelque chose, que le monde devrait être quelque chose, plutôt que d’être purement ce qu’il est ? L’éthique est la manière dont les corps plient le temps en eux-mêmes et, en particulier, la manière dont les êtres plient le futur en eux-mêmes, dans leur devenir relié au monde qu’ils impliquent. Le grand ennemi d’une éthique du pli est l’abstraction, quand nous pensons les corps comme des « objets », comme s’ils étaient de micro-souverains séparés de leur champ.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.026
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultitudesSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207