MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2916896727 · doi:10.4000/books.pum.21986

Une entrevue avec Herbert Marcuse

2000· book-chapter· fr· W2916896727 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcel Rioux

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooks · 2000
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article correspond à la retranscription de l’entrevue que Rioux, venu en Californie, réalise avec Herbert Marcuse, figure de proue de l’époque. Face à son interlocuteur, Rioux aborde divers sujets liés aux questions de l’heure et également à la pensée critique, aux États-Unis comme ailleurs. Il y est fait état de la société américaine, fer de lance de l’économie capitaliste en voie de s’imposer à l’échelle de la planète malgré ses aléas et ses contradictions. Comment l’envisager sous l’optique théorique ? Comment concevoir en théorie les forces sociales en présence ? Rioux ne se fait pas faute d’exposer à son vis-à-vis ses considérations sur les jeunes et sur l’art. Il est finalement question du Québec et du rôle que peuvent jouer les « petites nations » qui gravitent dans l’orbite de l’Empire américain que Marcuse perçoit en déclin. Marcuse, on le verra, répond à l’une et l’autre questions avec éloquence, mais parfois sur un ton agacé. Rioux avouera plus tard que l’entrevue a connu des ratés et que son interlocuteur s’est montré peu sympathique. Il aura néanmoins réussi ce tour de force d’amener Marcuse à se prononcer sur les questions de l’heure et sur l’état de la société dans laquelle il évolue tant bien que mal.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.157
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooks→Same topicPhilosophical and Theoretical Analysis→French-language works237,207→