Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans ce court article, nous entendons retracer l’histoire sémantique du mot spiritualité afin de mieux saisir la signification du concept que l’on évoque aujourd’hui. Puis, on présentera le cas du monachisme chrétien primitif, où les questions sous-jacentes à l’utilisation de ce terme semblent — toute distinction faite — les mêmes qu’à l’époque actuelle. Le but de ces quelques propos est, d’une part, de rappeler à quel point la notion de spiritualité est culturellement connotée et liée à une histoire spécifique qui en a déterminé l’évolution jusqu’à ses utilisations les plus récentes et, d’autre part, proposer une interrogation quant à la récurrence — réelle ou illusoire ? — de certaines questions dans l’histoire des concepts et, par extension, dans l’histoire de la religion. L’enjeu est celui d’un comparatisme capable de légitimer l’établissement de catégories conceptuelles potentiellement récurrentes, premier pas dans la fondation d’universels admissibles dans les sciences sociales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".