Les rapports entre littérature et philosophie, et la liberté humaine chez Descartes et chez Spinoza
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La litterature ne pourra pas se passer de la philosophe puisque il n’est pas possible de faire une recherche serieuse concernant certains concepts et notions essentiels en litterature sans tenir compte de leur evolution en philosophie. Comme une base pour les recherches sur la notion de la liberte humaine dans l’œuvre des ecrivains et des poetes nous presentons une etude critique et analytique de la meme notion chez les philosophes, particulierement chez Descartes et chez Spinoza. Chez Descartes la volonte est absolue et indivisible puisque choisir, c’est toujours choisir l’un ou l’autre de deux contraires, d’apres lui, ceci est la nature meme de la volonte libre. De l’absolue et evidente liberte de la volonte chez Descartes nous arrivons au concept de liberte- determinisme chez Spinoza; un concept qui est plutot une attitude de sage vis-a-vis du determinisme. Une analyse detaillee de la notion de la liberte humaine et son evolution dans la pensee et l’œuvre de Spinoza par rapport au meme concept chez Descartes est entreprise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".