Rhétorique des discours transhumanistes : arguments et fondements discursifs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le transhumanisme forme un mouvement culturel autour d’un projet plus ou moins cohérent selon lequel les humains peuvent et doivent utiliser des moyens techniques de pointe non conventionnels afin de transcender la condition humaine et prendre en main leur évolution. Pour justifier leur projet, les défenseur·e·s du transhumanisme avancent un certain nombre d’arguments. Ce texte présente et discute quatre topoï mobilisés par les discours transhumanistes. Au moyen des outils de la rhétorique, d’une analyse des discours et d’une approche critique, l’article examine tour à tour ces arguments formulés par des transhumanistes et leurs fondements discursifs. Il met en perspective ces arguments en les replaçant dans leur contexte et en mettant de l’avant la façon dont les discours transhumanistes visent à légitimer une position de pouvoir et sont propices à reconduire les inégalités sociales.
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 | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".