A CONCEPÇÃO DE “DISTÂNCIA” EM JACQUES HENRIOT: UM ESPAÇO VIRTUAL DE JOGO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jacques Henriot asserts that the game refers to one and the same idea. He believes in a semantic core, a common element, a “unity of the game” among the diversity of games. This “common denominator”, as Caillois puts it, is what makes all types of games playable. This semantic core is, according to our reading of Henriot, the “distance” that defines the function of play, for the idea of play must first be understood in a mechanical way. Play is above all that emptiness which allows us to say that there is play: in the parts of a gear, in the joints, in a hinge, etc. Playing is then considered as a dialectical operation that puts the player at a distance. The form of the game is this distance, this interval that allows the game to exist for a player. The distance is thus a key concept to understand Henriot’s conception of the game, but instead of approaching the distance from a psychoanalytical point of view, we propose to define this concept starting from the concept of “virtuality” in order to fully grasp the richness of Henriot’s thinking.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".