Chroniques d’un kantisme attendu : les accents kantiens de <i>Philosophiques</i> ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article étudie le regain d’intérêt inattendu à l’égard de la philosophie kantienne qui se manifeste entre 1990 et 2000 dans Philosophies, la revue de la Société de philosophie du Québec. On assiste à cette époque à la réception au Québec des débats franco-germaniques initiés une décennie auparavant autour de la Critique de la faculté de juger. Je démontre que deux projets philosophiques indépendants expliquent cette convergence historique. D’une part, une exégèse québécoise solide recontextualise la fonction esthétique du « sublime », survalorisée notamment par Adorno et Lyotard, dans son rapport au jugement de goût. D’autre part, la « querelle de famille » qui oppose en philosophie politique et juridique Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls et Alain Renaut exploite les ressources conceptuelles développées dans la première section de la Critique de la faculté de juger (ex. intersubjectivité, communicabilité, sympathie) afin d’identifier des critères d’objectivité pratique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".