Allégories du progrès : Goethe et Hegel face à l’écriture de l’histoire1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article aborde la manière dont Goethe et Hegel ont développé un nouveau regard sur l’histoire ; un regard dont la nature abstraite et la visée universelle ont conduit tous les deux à retravailler à nouveaux frais une ancienne figure de style : l’allégorie. Tant dans le Faust II que dans La Raison dans l’histoire, c’est effectivement en termes allégoriques que se dessine un nouveau rapport entre le sensible et le conceptuel dans le domaine historique. Comparer les usages esthétiques et éthiques de l’allégorie qui transparaissent dans ces deux ouvrages peut donc non seulement mettre en évidence le fait que Goethe et Hegel partageaient un ensemble de problématiques, mais surtout s’avérer fécond pour identifier les points communs et les différences entre l’écriture littéraire de l’histoire et celle de la philosophie de l’histoire proprement dite. Il y va, en dernier ressort, de l’évaluation que ces deux auteurs font du progrès historique et, par là, de la Modernité elle-même.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".