MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3130608766 · doi:10.4000/cpuc.1616

La notion de sobornost’ dans la pensée russe, hier et aujourd’hui

2020· article· fr· W3130608766 on OpenAlexaff
Anastasia Ugleva

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de philosophie de l’Université de Caen · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article analyse rétrospectivement les directions principales empruntées par l’interprétation de la notion sobornost’ dans la pensée philosophique russe moderne. Clé pour la philosophie russe religieuse à la frontière des XIXe et XXe siècles, ce terme n’a pas perdu son importance aujourd’hui. Au contraire, il a acquis de nouvelles significations. D’une notion avant tout religieuse-philosophique et épistémologique, il s’est transformé en catégorie ontologique et anthropologique. Ce qui a permis de décrire la communauté nationale russe actuelle comme une « conciliarité » correspondant à l’« idée russe ».

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de philosophie de l’Université de Caen→Same topicReligion and Society Interactions→French-language works237,207→