MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945059305 · doi:10.5840/symposium20192318

Sujet, narcissisme et infini

2019· article· fr· W2945059305 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrea Cavazzini, Jean Matthys

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Economy and Marxism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfinityHumanitiesPhilosophyCapital (architecture)Perspective (graphical)EpistemologySociologyMathematicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article discute, à travers le parcours critique d’un récent ouvrage d’Anselm Jappe, la thèse d’une illimitation « narcissique » constitutive de la forme subjective propre aux rapports de production capitalistes contemporains. Montrant que cette perspective est fondée sur une conception monolithique et unilatérale de l’histoire du capital et de ses sujets, ainsi que sur une réduction illégitime de toute forme d’in􀏔inité au « mauvais in􀏔ini » de l’illimitation, nous soutenons la nécessité de penser un infini positif irréductible tant à l’illimitation abstraite de la valorisation qu’aux dispositifs capitalistes qui limitent les puissances d’autodétermination et d’autoactivation des individus.This article critically discusses the thesis, recently developed by Anselm Jappe, of a “narcissistic” illimitation constitutive of the subjective form typical of contemporary capitalist relations of production. By showing that this perspective is grounded on a monolithic and one-sided conception of the history of capital and its subjects, as well as on an illegitimate reduction of every form of infinity to the “bad infinity” of illimitation, we defend the necessity to conceive a positive form of infinity, irreducible to both the abstract illimitation of valorization and the capitalist apparatuses that limit the individual power of self-determination and self-activity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.017

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.272 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposiumSame topicPolitical Economy and MarxismFrench-language works237,207