Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé L’universel comme horizon d’attente des savoirs issus de divers champs épistémologiques autorise le comparatisme, pratiqué comme dialogue, à condition de partir du pluralisme. Il se démarque du relativisme par le postulat de conversation ; le tiers, un horizon idéel, en étant le médiateur. S’appuyant sur l’expérience de ses recherches sur mémoires et histoire des sociétés urbaines d’Afrique centrale, l’auteur souligne l’irréductibilité de la tension entre le savoir scolastique et les savoirs pratiques soumis à l’urgence de l’action. En fait partie la tension entre l’objectivation, qu’opère le premier, et l’exigence éthique de respect pour les acteurs. Le présent, au sens de l’actuel, constitue le lieu où ces tensions travaillent. Le pluralisme épistémologique postule l’analyse de ce travail dans le respect de l’autonomie de chaque savoir. À l’instar du présent, un point de vue sur le temps, le particulier est un point de vue sur l’universel.
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 | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".