La tonalité des philosophes. Une approche de D’un ton apocalyptique adopté naguère en philosophie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La lecture du texte D’un ton apocalyptique adopté naguère en philosophie n’est pas sans poser de difficiles problèmes d’interprétation. Parmi ceux-ci, on doit compter entre autres l’enchevêtrement des thèmes et la contradiction apparente de Derrida, partagé qu’il semble être entre une critique du recours au ton apocalyptique en philosophie et la récupération de ce ton au sein de son propre discours. L’article éclaire cette ambiguïté apparente en mettant en parallèle la question du ton dans la philosophie hégélienne avec le motif « apocalyptique » de la fin de la philosophie exprimé dans D’un ton apocalyptique… Cette mise en parallèle permet de dégager toute la cohérence et la pertinence de ce motif et d’éclairer en retour le débat avec Kant et ses héritiers qui traverse le texte en entier, et qui porte sur la possibilité et les limites de la démystification.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".