Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article entend proposer un critère d’évaluation d’un héritage conceptuel possible de Spinoza à Darwin, mettant en avant qu’il ne suffit pas de mobiliser des notions communes entre les deux auteurs. Pour ce faire, il commence par restituer une série de comparaisons contemporaines dans cette voie, pour ensuite tenter d’expliciter ce que Darwin entend lui-même demander à la mobilisation de certaines de ses notions héritées. C’est alors sur le critère de la différence individuelle que l’analyse permettra de dégager un schéma conceptuel suffisamment probant pour dire que Darwin reprend une pensée historiquement située. Enfin, après avoir étudié une divergence conceptuelle significative dans cette reprise, l’analyse montre que la voie darwinienne laisse délibérément de côté une dimension ouverte de l’analyse spinoziste concernant le concept de supériorité (praestantia).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".