Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martha Nussbaum a proposé une interprétation influente de la théorie stoïcienne des passions, que le présent article remet en question. Nussbaum soutient que les passions, pour les stoïciens, sont des jugements plutôt que des états intentionnels causés par des jugements préalables. Il sera montré que Nussbaum n’établit pas une distinction entre la passion, qui est en fait une impulsion de l’hegemonikon, et le jugement qui la cause. Cette distinction permet pourtant aux stoïciens de soutenir qu’une passion est un mouvement intentionnel ayant des dimensions évaluative, kinétique et affective, tout en affirmant qu’elle est causée par des jugements préalables. Il sera également montré que Nussbaum néglige l’existence d’un premier mouvement proche de l’impulsion, annonçant la passion, dont l’existence est pourtant prise en considération par Chrysippe, Cicéron et Sénèque dans leur thérapie des passions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".