L’inversion motivationnelle, un problème d’irrationalité ? Thi Nguyen et le spectre de la duperie de soi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans « Games and the Art of Agency » puis dans Games : Agency as Art, Thi Nguyen introduit l’inversion motivationnelle, un état motivationnel adopté par certain·e·s agent·e·s qui ne visent la victoire que pour éprouver les défis qui se présentent dans le cadre du jeu. Celleux-ci sont amené·e·s à considérer les objectifs largables du jeu comme des fins, bien qu’iels sachent ne désirer les rencontrer que dans une perspective instrumentale. Il s’agit ici de préciser la description de ce phénomène et de la comparer aux perspectives prévalentes de la duperie de soi. Si j’insiste sur les ressemblances entre ces dernières et l’état d’inversion motivationnelle, je ne tente pas de le réduire à un cas d’irrationalité. Il semble cependant que la nécessité de préciser davantage le concept d’agentivité chez Thi Nguyen se dessine pour éviter de traiter l’inversion motivationnelle comme un simple cas de duperie de soi ainsi que certaines conséquences curieuses se dégageant de leurs ressemblances.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".