Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cette réponse aux questions et objections adressées à L'inquiétude de la pensée, je ne pourrai rendre entièrement justice à toutes les remarques qui m'ont été faites.Je tenterai néanmoins d'en ressaisir les principaux enjeux et problèmes, m'autorisant à les faire se recouper quand ils me sembleront se rejoindre sur le fond.J'espère de cette façon clarifier, voire enrichir, le propos général de mon livre, que Sylvain Camilleri, Guillaume Fagniez, Claudia Serban, Christian Sommer, Isabelle Thomas-Fogiel et Laurent Villevieille m'ont fait l'honneur et l'amitié de lire et de commenter avec toute la finesse et la générosité qui les caractérisent.Avant d'y venir, je tiens toutefois à rappeler ce dont il retourne de la décision herméneutique qui a guidé ma lecture des cours du jeune Heidegger, et ce, dans la mesure où cette décision est relevée diversement par Sylvain Camilleri, Guillaume Fagniez, Christian Sommer et Isabelle Thomas-Fogiel -Sommer pour s'y opposer, Camilleri pour me reprocher de ne pas l'avoir assumée assez radicalement, Fagniez et Thomas-Fogiel pour en sonder les limites. Sur la perspective de l'interprétation
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 | 0.016 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.009 |
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".