Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plusieurs commentateurs de l’oeuvre de Theodor W. Adorno ont à raison, dans les vingt dernières années, relevé la pertinence de sa critique de la domination de la nature (Naturbeherrschung) pour penser les tenants et aboutissants de la crise environnementale. Toutefois, ils se fondent sur un usage parfois bancal du concept adornien de « nature », ce qui appelle une clarification conceptuelle. Prenant le contre-pied de certains commentateurs qui perçoivent dans ce concept la fétichisation romantique d’une pure nature, je discute dans cet article la teneur profondément dialectique de ce concept. Je reformule d’abord la Dialectique de la Raison dans les termes d’une dialectique nature-raison pour ensuite discuter du concept de « première nature » et dégager enfin ce que j’appellerai le « naturalisme dialectique et critique » d’Adorno. En résultera un éclaircissement quant à la pertinence de la théorie critique d’Adorno pour penser certaines causes de la crise environnementale et pour penser la possibilité de la critiquer et d’y remédier.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".