MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6983072143

Le rôle de l'expérience sensible dans les dialogues de maturité de Platon

2010· other· fr· W6983072143 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2010
Typeother
Languagefr
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodHyporeflexiaTSG101DemotionFusible alloy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce mémoire a pour but de définir le rôle de l’expérience sensible à l’intérieur de la\nthéorie de la connaissance des dialogues de maturité de Platon, à savoir le Phédon, le\nPhèdre, le Banquet et la République. Pour atteindre ce but, nous nous questionnons\nd’abord sur la notion de réminiscence, principalement par l’étude de l’extrait 72-77\ndu Phédon et des différentes interprétations qu’il est possible d’en donner. Ensuite,\nnous montrons que les quatre dialogues partagent une structure épistémologique\ncommune, pour finalement nous concentrer sur les différentes fonctions attribuées à\nl’expérience sensible. L’objectif poursuivi par cette étude est de démontrer qu’en\ndépit de l’attitude critique de Platon à l’égard des sens et de l’imperfection du monde sensible, il n’en demeure pas moins que la perception joue un rôle épistémologique et pédagogique important : elle fait partie intégrante du processus qui mène à la formation de concepts chez tout un chacun, elle incite le philosophe en devenir à se retourner vers le monde intelligible, et elle permet au philosophe accompli de se remémorer, à chaque instant, les arguments en faveur de l’immortalité de l’âme et de la nécessité de la philosophie.

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)0.009
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.005

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.140
Teacher spread0.137 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→French-language works237,207→