Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le domaine de l’esprit objectif excède la dimension morale et politique à laquelle le limitait Hegel pour intégrer les oeuvres, les techniques ou encore les institutions au sens large. Le rapport entre la dimension présente, génétique, actuelle, et les dépôts de son activité, permet d’articuler une enquête sociologique sur le commun avec une herméneutique des objets sociaux. L’analyse synchronique des formes de la socialité se faisant se trouve complétée d’une considération diachronique sur l’historicité des phénomènes culturels. L’article explore la constitution de l‘objet des sciences sociales dans son rapport avec la problématique de l‘esprit objectif, qui permet une comparaison avec la tradition herméneutique. Il évoque Hegel, Boeckh, Dilthey ainsi que la différence entre Simmel et Durkheim, les traditions allemande et française. Il suggère que le modèle simmelien apporte un gain en souplesse analytique qui le situe au croisement des apports de l‘herméneutique et de la sociologie.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".