MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782419709 · doi:10.14195/1984-249x_15_2

BESTIAIRE DE L’ÉTHIQUE ARISTOTÉLICIENNE

2015· article· en· W2782419709 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Rodrigue

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Archai · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsDominican University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBestiaryPhilosophyEpistemologyLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’objectif principal de cet article est d’initier la réflexion à propos du rôle que joue l’animal dans l’éthique aristotélicienne. La plupart des études consacrées à ce sujet expliquent comment l’animal est exclu de la morale, ou encore traitent du travers qu’Aristote nomme « bestialité ». Ces perspectives, toutefois, sont réductrices dans la mesure où l’animal apparaît dans les Éthiques autrement que pour servir de repoussoir. Nous nous proposons donc d’éclairer les raisons pour lesquelles le Stagirite fait intervenir l’animal dans ses traités de morale en déterminant les fonctions qu’il remplit. Les textes considérés à cette fin sont les exposés nicomachéen et eudémien concernant les vertus morales de courage et de tempérance, lesquels, de l’avis général, sont particulièrement intéressés au règne animal. L’étude prendra la forme d’un bestiaire, où chaque notice détaillera le contexte d’introduction de l’animal en question, la fonc-tion qu’il vise ainsi que les enjeux que sa présence soulève.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.022
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.139 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista ArchaiSame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207