MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311162130 · doi:10.3917/res.235.0047

Résonance et théorie critique

2022· article· fr· W4311162130 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Taylor, Émilie Martini

Bibliographic record

VenueRéseaux · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHumanities and Social Sciences
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La Théorie critique est ancrée dans les valeurs d’une gauche qui puise ses ressorts dans la capacité d’agir ( agency ). L’attention portée à la capacité d’agir dans la modernité a toutefois eu tendance à oblitérer une autre dimension tout aussi essentielle de la relation au monde, la « patientivité » ( patiency ) ou « capacité à être affecté ». Un retour à la pensée romantique au XVIII e siècle permet de dégager le thème clé – mais souvent négligé dans la pensée des Lumières – de la résonance au monde. La résonance fait place au sensible en fondant le raisonnement dans les sentiments et, surtout, en conférant au langage une capacité de « révélation » du monde et du soi. Pour les romantiques, la forme d’expression même de cette quête d’harmonie avec le monde est la poésie, interstice entre l’individu et le cosmos permettant de faire sens et de relier les dimensions spatiale et temporelle dans un tout signifiant. La résonance poétique s’inscrit ainsi aux antipodes de l’expérience aliénante d’un temps et d’un espace fragmentés, caractéristique des sociétés capitalistes contemporaines, aliénation parfaitement décrite par Baudelaire avec son concept de « spleen ».

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.063
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRéseauxSame topicHumanities and Social SciencesFrench-language works237,207