Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nombre de travaux ont fait ressortir les divergences entre Heidegger et Deleuze. Comment, à présent, faire converger leurs philosophies? Cette question nous occupe dans ce qui suit. Il s’agit d’abord de montrer que les pensées heideggérienne et deleuzienne se recoupent par leur volonté de mettre à bas les acceptions classiques du possible. Nous faisons voir, dans un second temps, que Heidegger et Deleuze se rejoignent aussi par leurs manières respectives de repenser le problème du possible. En troisième lieu, plongeant dans les enjeux pratiques, nous nous demandons si le projet deleuzien n’est pas susceptible de venir compléter la philosophie heideggérienne. Notre objectif ne sera donc pas d’effacer de manière obtuse la distance entre Heidegger et Deleuze; il consistera, bien plutôt, à atténuer l’important écart qu’on voit d’ordinaire entre eux et à faire signe vers une certaine complémentarité, encore inaperçue jusqu’ici.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".