On the problem of Exupérian heroism in Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology of perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou autres formats.L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse.Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privée, quelques formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de cette thèse.Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. Note on Gender-Exclusive LanguageAs is conventional, gender-exclusive language in original texts -of which there is an abundance in the works under consideration -is reproduced in quotation.According to the sense, however, it is often also retained in discussion, in order to avoid conveying a misleading impression of inclusivity.For it is precisely the question of the inc1usivity of 'humanist universality' that forms the backdrop for the following discussion.Although 1 do not take up the question directly in this dissertation, 1 would argue that the masculinist androcentrism that is patent on the surface of Saint-Exupéry's writing actually mns deeply enough as to irredeemably compromise the humanist c1aims that he makes.That is not a very controversial claim.However, whether Merleau-Ponty's work is likewise compromised by sexist ideology, or else wh ether it has valuable resources to offer the project of feminist philosophy-this is a live and important question.Inasmuch as the present work sheds new light on Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, it can make a contribution to the resolution of this question.But 1 do not want to prejudge the outcome of this by charitably reading into Merleau-Ponty's work an inclusivity that it has not as yet demonstrated its capacity to support.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".