MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3153372362 · doi:10.7202/1074503ar

Peut-on parler d’une obligation absolue de vivre ?

2021· article· fr· W3153372362 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean-Jacques Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontières · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Que disent les textes fondateurs du judaïsme et du christianisme au sujet du suicide ? Parlent-ils d’une obligation absolue de vivre ? Les éthiciens sont nombreux à poser un jugement négatif et déjà arrêté avant même qu’ils n’aient entamé la lecture des textes fondateurs. Pourtant, l’éthique sous-jacente à ces textes se présente comme une éthique de l’ambiguïté. Par conséquent, une éthique religieuse qui puise son inspiration dans les textes fondateurs ne doit considérer aucun acte comme absolument et universellement bon ou mauvais en soi; elle doit toujours s’interroger sur son contexte, sur les possibilités de celui qui le pose et sur la signification qui lui a été donnée.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontières→Same topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research→French-language works237,207→