SCHRIFT/SCHREIBEN ALS TRANSGRESSION. WALTER BENJAMINS KONSTRUKTION VON GESCHICHTE(N)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur réévalue la pertinence des travaux de Walter Benjamin dans le contexte des débats théoriques contemporains et propose une réorientation des études sur Benjamin. S’appuyant sur l’hypothèse de l’unité historique et philosophique du « programme » de Benjamin — du « fragment théologique-politique » aux « thèses sur la philosophie de l’histoire » —, Barck réinterprète la théorie et la pratique de l’écriture benjaminiennes. La théorie du langage qui fonde sa philosophie de l’histoire étant largement influencée par les idées de Benjamin sur l’écriture (Schrift/Schreiben), Barck développe plus particulièrement les trois problématiques suivantes : le babelisme en tant qu’indice de confusion linguistique, la magie du langage et la manifestation (Darlegung) comme acte d’écriture dans l’écriture comme medium. Reprenant la terminologie de Benjamin, Barck situe sa pensée dans un contexte international et interdisciplinaire et souligne les affinités de celle-ci avec les oeuvres de Marcel Jousse, Erik E. Havelock et la Toronto School of Communication.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.009 |
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".