MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035833925 · doi:10.7202/1069138ar

L’économie selon Agamben

2020· article· fr· W3035833925 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alain Gignac

Bibliographic record

VenueThéologiques · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedical, Sociocultural, and Biopolitical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le règne et la gloire du philosophe italien Agamben (2007) mène une enquête sur la trajectoire théologico-politique du concept grec « économie », depuis Aristote et les pères de l’Église jusqu’aux théologiens médiévaux (et les philosophes modernes). Il s’agit d’une oeuvre qui transgresse les frontières disciplinaires et appelle un dialogue interdisciplinaire. Si Agamben emprunte à la théologie, comment, par effet de retour, sa philosophie politique nous permet-elle de revisiter notre théologie et nos interprétations bibliques ? Dans cette deuxième partie d’un essai en deux volets, le dispositif bipolaire de l’économie divine mis en lumière par Agamben est approfondi, comme processus par lequel l’économie (gestion de la maison divine) et le ministère (gouvernement divin du monde) deviennent mystère, pavant ainsi la route à la gestion bureaucratique et tout-économique moderne, liée à la sécularisation. Or Éphésiens 3, un texte évoqué mais non analysé par Agamben, pourrait prolonger la réflexion sur la nécessité de reconnecter action et être, car la spiritualité paulinienne opère justement cette jonction qu’Agamben appelle de tous ses voeux.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThéologiquesSame topicMedical, Sociocultural, and Biopolitical StudiesFrench-language works237,207