Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse les éléments constitutifs de ce que Strasser nomme lui-même une « phénoménologie du dialogue » (1969), laquelle repose sur une double tentative : il s’agit, premièrement, de restaurer une phénoménologie de l’intériorité, après la critique husserlienne puis merleau-pontienne du cogito cartésien ; deuxièmement, de prendre en compte la primordialité de l’affectivité dans la constitution de l’éthique, au moyen d’une archéologie du sujet qui place la rencontre de l’autre, sous la forme d’un « Tu », au premier plan du surgissement du monde commun. Pour mener à bien cette entreprise, Strasser refonde l’anthropologie philosophique en réintroduisant la notion de « coeur » (Gemüt ; thumos), véritable zone intermédiaire et lieu de métabolisation et de métaphorisation du réel qui rend la visée descriptive de la phénoménologie, sous la forme d’une explicitation des différentes couches de la réalité, compatible avec la visée normative et universelle de l’éthique.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.012 |
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".