MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205699477 · doi:10.4000/books.psorbonne.89990

La générosité comme liberté dans l’Éthique de Spinoza

2020· book-chapter· fr· W4205699477 on OpenAlexaff
Hannah Sharp

Bibliographic record

VenueÉditions de la Sorbonne eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cette étude consacrée à la vertu de générosité, je propose une solution alternative à la difficulté présentée par Daniel Garber dans son étude sur sociabilité et liberté dans l’Éthique de Spinoza. Garber repère une tension dans la doctrine de Spinoza, selon laquelle : 1. la liberté est la capacité d’être cause adéquate de ses propres actions et 2. la liberté implique un désir d’amitié, de compagnie et d’entraide. La liberté en tant que causalité adéquate semble impliquer l’auto-suffisan...

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

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 studies0.0040.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueÉditions de la Sorbonne eBooksSame topicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207