Charles De Koninck et la pensée spéculative contemporaine (Meillassoux, Grant, Garcia, Bergson)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’ambition de cet article est de tirer au clair le versant spéculatif de l’oeuvre de Charles De Koninck en la mettant en dialogue avec la pensée spéculative contemporaine. Pour ce faire, nous nous efforçons d’abord de synthétiser la manière dont Quentin Meillassoux et Iain Hamilton Grant (dont la relecture de Schelling n’est pas sans recouper certaines idées vitalistes de Bergson) réhabilitent la connaissance du réel lui-même, après quoi nous relevons différents points d’accord ou de désaccord entre ces auteurs et Charles De Koninck. Parmi les thèmes abordés en l’occurrence et qui recoupent tous la question du réel, figurent la différence entre l’en-soi et le pour-nous, le finalisme, l’indéterminisme et les alternatives que propose l’ontologie aux concepts de devenir et de substance (Tristan Garcia).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 it