Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, on approfondit la possibilité de considérer la liturgie comme travail de la paresse à partir d’un essai de radicalisation des notions rituelles de « contre-structure » et de « liminalité » (V. Turner). On commence par mettre en évidence l’aspect fondamental de la réflexion théologique de François Nault sur la paresse : l’enquête d’une nouvelle modalité d’action. On se tourne tout de suite vers le paradoxe représenté par l’invitation quotidienne à entrer dans « l’aujourd’hui » du repos divin qui nourrit le travail rituel chrétien. On continue en reprenant la question de la liturgie comme travail pour interroger autant la thèse selon laquelle la liturgie est le véritable paradigme du travail et du devoir modernes (Agamben) que la perspective qui en fait le coeur du loisir et de la culture (Pieper). On revient finalement sur l’enjeu de la paresse pour en proposer une relecture rituelle de la dialectique qui la relie au travail.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".