Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les distinctions entre les travaux particuliers et le travail général, d’une part, et entre la plus-value et les formes particulières de l’accroissement de la valeur, d’autre part, constituent deux innovations théoriques majeures du Capital. L’article examine leur portée dans la critique de l’économie politique classique et illustre la thèse selon laquelle elles attestent d’un déplacement des topoï du discours dialectique qui concernent le lieu d’effectuation du procès dialectique et le statut des idéalités, celui des idéalités théoriques en particulier. Il montre que dans l’ensemble de l’oeuvre ces déplacements touchent également les opérateurs du discours dialectique que sont la négation, la contradiction, l’unité de l’identité et de la différence ou encore la manière de différencier les moments du procès dialectique. Bref l’article pose que l’avancée théorique de Marx consista à reconfigurer le noyau dialectique de la critique. Il soutient que c’est par là qu’il serait destiné à demeurer notre contemporain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".