Le métarécit transhumaniste et les fictions technologiques contemporaines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur tente d’éclaircir un paradoxe, celui de la présence de mythes et de fictions dans les sociétés individualistes contemporaines, souvent qualifiées de « désenchantées ». Plus qu’un mythe au sens traditionnel, il s’agirait d’« univers mythique », de muthos. Cependant les énoncés se réclamant du « transhumanisme » ruinent en réalité le schème mythique de la transformation et de la révélation du sujet à lui-même, en court-circuitant l’espace de l’intériorité, dans un déni de la finitude. D’autres fictions, issues de la culture populaire, apparaissent comme des alternatives crédibles à ce pseudo-mythe, et permettent aux sujets de penser leur désarroi.El autor intenta aclarar una paradoja, la de la presencia de mitos y ficciones en las sociedades individualistas contemporáneas, a menudo consideradas como “desencantadas”. Más que un mito en el sentido tradicional del término, se trataría de un “universo mítico”, muthos. Sin embargo, los enunciados se identifican como “transhumanistas” que, en realidad afectan el esquema mítico de la transformación y revelación del sujeto en sí mismo, produciendo un cortocircuito en el espacio interior, con la negación de la finitud. Otras ficciones, surgidas de la cultura popular aparecen como alternativas fiables a este pseudo-mito, permitiendo a los sujetos pensar en su desconcierto.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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.
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".