MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080665653 · doi:10.7202/1070837ar

Métaphysique de finitude et métaphysique créaturelle

2020· article· fr· W3080665653 on OpenAlex
Julien Lambinet

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLaval théologique et philosophique · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Science, and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Erich Przywara admet avoir développé son idée de « métaphysique créaturelle » en confrontation avec la pensée de M. Heidegger. Nous montrerons comment la lecture que développe le jésuite de cette dernière s’appuie sur l’enracinement de la pensée heideggérienne dans les discussions des années 1920 autour de la nature du kantisme. Przywara tâche de rendre compte de ces débats à partir des tensions existant dans la démarche même du philosophe de Königsberg. Celles-ci donneront naissance à deux voies d’interprétation, que Przywara schématise sous les traits d’une « métaphysique de la finitude », telle que représentée par M. Heidegger, et d’une « métaphysique de l’infinitude », chez notamment E. Herrigel. C’est de la dialectique entre ces deux voies que doit surgir, selon Przywara, la perspective de l’ analogia entis comme métaphysique de créature.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.222 · 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