Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette communication aura pour but de presenter le transhumanisme et les enjeux politiques et sociaux qu’il declenche. Ce mouvement est defini par de nombreux chercheurs comme une utopie biocentree et hyperindividualiste dont le but est l’amelioration physique et intellectuelle de l’espece humaine par le biais des technologies convergentes (NBIC). Tandis que le transhumanisme semble s’etre empare du debat autour de ces technologies, la majorite des discours sur ces questions, qu’ils soient alarmistes ou au contraire enthousiastes, s’accordent sur la necessite d’une ethique ou d’une bioethique. Or force est de constater que les discours autour de ces termes restent dichotomiques, rendant la reflexion d’autant plus complexe. La question de fond qui me preoccupe est des lors la suivante : que disent les discours autour du transhumanisme et de l’ethique du rapport de nos societes aux technologies convergentes et comment interroger le transhumanisme sans sombrer dans l’ideologie ? This article will try to present transhumanism with its political and social implications. This movement is defined by many scholars as a biocentered and hyperindividualized utopia seeking the physical and intellectual enhancement of the human species through the use of disruptive technologies (NBIC). While transhumanism seems to be omnipresent in the debate around these technologies, many discourses on the question, be they alarmist or on the contrary enthusiastic, tend to agree on the necessity of an ethics or bioethics. Yet, it should be noted that discourses around the issue remain dichotomic and make reflection all the more complex. The question I am therefore tackling is the following: what do discourses around transhumanism and ethics reveal of the relation of our societies to disruptive technologies and how can transhumanism be analyzed whithout falling into ideology?
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".