Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ayant été formée durant de nombreuses années par la pensée de Paul Diel, j'ai voulu faire le lien entre mon expérience psychologique et les connaissances acquises en Philosophie à l’Université Laval. Paul Diel, m’est alors apparu, comme une jonction entre ces deux domaines antérieurement réunis dans la plupart des philosophies. J’ai retracé la vie de Paul Diel, et essayé de montrer l’originalité spécifique de l’œuvre de Diel dans l’utilisation qu’il a faite des apports de la philosophie, de la psychologie, et de la psychanalyse. J’ai comparé les concepts d’âme, d’imagination et d’intellect issus des œuvres d’Aristote, de Hegel et de Diel en faisant ressortir leur évolution dans le temps. Ceux-ci s'organisent autour de la notion d'universel. La méthodologie utilisée dans ce travail est l'introspection, résultat d'expériences de vie, d'observations, soutenue, par des connaissances en psychologie en philosophie et philosophie des sciences. Elles m'ont amenée à préciser les notions de rationalité, d’émotion, d'universel.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".