MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041689428 · doi:10.3917/rdm.055.0041

Le jugement de Salomon

2020· article· fr· W3041689428 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue du MAUSS · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicViolence, Religion, and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet échange croisé entre Jacques T. Godbout et René Girard, le jugement de Salomon met en question l’importance respective de la rivalité mimétique et de l’esprit du don. L’une des deux mères prétendues rejette la violence jusqu’à risquer de perdre son enfant pour le sauver, ce qui est contraire au désir mimétique girardien, explique Godbout ; l’autre, au contraire, s’y conforme, et Girard ne retient que cette dernière, à laquelle sa théorie s’applique. Dans sa réplique, Girard souligne que s’il accorde tant d’attention au désir mimétique (aussi banalement universel que l’amour), c’est parce qu’il passe trop souvent inaperçu. Mais, conclut aujourd’hui Godbout, tentons de sortir du faux débat selon lequel Salomon a parié soit sur l’un, soit sur l’autre. Une autre interprétation féconde du récit biblique serait que le roi Salomon, dans sa sagesse, a misé sur les deux, tout en faisant le pari de l’amour et du don.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.175 · 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