Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article étudie les notions de honte (αἰσχύνη) et de retenue (αἰδώς) dans la Stoa, les raisons pour lesquelles elles s’y trouvent opposées (la première comme passion, la seconde comme bon sentiment) et ce que la critique stoïcienne de la honte (définie comme peur de la mauvaise réputation) doit à l’origine à l’influence du cynisme sur Zénon. Dans un deuxième temps, l’auteur montre que la critique de la honte doit se comprendre dans le cadre plus large de la doctrine stoïcienne de la διαστροφή ou perversion de la nature humaine, doctrine qui identifie l’influence du jugement de la foule (par l’intermédiaire de la pratique ordinaire du blâme et de l’éloge) comme l’une des deux principales sources de corruption de l’homme. Dans la dernière partie, l’auteur étudie le traitement des notions de honte ( pudor ) et de retenue ( reuerentia ) dans les Lettres à Lucilius 10 et 25 de Sénèque, où la honte est présentée comme une forme de contrainte positive à l’égard du non sage, contrainte qui doit toutefois ultimement s’effacer au profit de la retenue comprise comme respect de soi (de la raison) chez le sage.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".