MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026747304 · doi:10.7202/1069142ar

Pierre Klossowski, le signe unique et le sous-venir

2020· article· fr· W3026747304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guillaume Perrier

Bibliographic record

VenueTangence · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans l’« Avertissement » et la « Postface » de la trilogie romanesque Les lois de l’hospitalité (1965), qui tourne autour du personnage de l’épouse (Roberte), Pierre Klossowski déploie le thème de la mémoire pour définir « l’expérience initiale » à l’origine de la fiction. Une lecture rapprochée de ce paratexte, des manuscrits et des fragments inédits qui s’y rattachent, permet d’expliquer comment la mémoire de l’auteur, au sens psychologique et biographique, est récusée par la pensée créatrice. D’autres formes de mémoire transparaissent, notamment l’expérience du « sous-venir », néologisme klossowskien inspiré par la lecture (et la traduction) de Nietzsche. Le sujet devient l’objet d’un phénomène mnémonique déterminé par une pensée extérieure, qui se souvient pour lui, qui le fait « sous-venir ». Le thème de la mémoire apparaît ainsi comme le thème privilégié d’un anti-cogito fondé non pas sur la rationalité et l’identité à soi-même, mais sur la singularité du fantasme et l’altérité de la relation conjugale. Il laisse entrevoir ce qu’aurait pu être un essai philosophique original, à la fois autonome et issu de la fiction, Du signe unique, dont la matière sera finalement reprise sous la forme d’un commentaire, dans Nietzsche et le cercle vicieux (1969).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTangenceSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207