MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399424474 · doi:10.4000/11s7i

Le toucher de la philosophie

2024· article· fr· W4399424474 on OpenAlexaff
Rosaria Caldarone

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers philosophiques de Strasbourg · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsSAIT Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toucher l’intouchable – cet axiome qui appartient à la loi du toucher depuis Aristote et qui traverse l’œuvre de Jean-Luc Nancy, comme J. Derrida l’a remarqué, semble inscrit au cœur de la philosophie, dont le statut est posé par Platon dans le Banquet. Revenir sur cela implique de jouer à nouveau le rapport entre le sensible et l’intelligible, entre le corps et la chair, entre l’amour et la vérité en affaiblissant leur opposition.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.030
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers philosophiques de StrasbourgSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207