MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295559925 · doi:10.48075/aoristo.v1i2.18220

“L’infini derrière la haie”. L’homme comme exigence ontologique et humilité chez G. Marcel

2017· article· fr· W4295559925 on OpenAlexaff
Ramon Caiffa

Bibliographic record

VenueAoristo - International Journal of Phenomenology Hermeneutics and Metaphysics · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsHumboldt District Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On tachera d’exposer, dans ce bref texte, tout d’abord, les motivations qu’on a pouraffirmer que la subjectivité demande un effort pour satisfaire l’exigence ontologique quiest constitutive de son être. Ceci demandera, d’abord, l’explication de certains motscomme exigence ontologique, recueillement et humilité. Ensuite, on verra si, et comment,une telle exigence peut être satisfaite. On s’appuiera, pour faire ceci, sur les réflexions duphilosophe français Gabriel Marcel, qui a avancé, notamment dans Le mystère de l’être etHomo Viator, des importantes contributions à ce sujet. La philosophie de Gabriel Marcelsera analysée, non seulement dans sa production « systématique », mais aussi dans cellethéâtrale, car c’est dans le caractère dramatique de la pièce théâtrale qu’une expérience del’absolu peut d’abord se produire et ensuite s’alimenter. En effet, dans la conviction quecette expérience a besoin de la communication indirecte du théâtre et de la poésie, on seraautorisé à en faire recours. On montrera, alors, en suivant une analyse gnoséologique,d’abord (I) comment la définition de la subjectivité comme effort est nécessaire et exacteet puis (II) comment cette exigence ontologique peut être satisfaite.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.349 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAoristo - International Journal of Phenomenology Hermeneutics and MetaphysicsSame topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchFrench-language works237,207