D’une trompeuse absence : « tenter » et « tentation » dans l’oeuvre de Pascal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le lexique de la tentation brille, dans l’oeuvre de Pascal, par sa quasi-absence. Devons-nous pour autant conclure à l’absence de la chose ? Si le mot tentation ne suffit sans doute pas à dire la vie du pécheur pour Pascal, sa discrétion impose en fait une assez grande spécification permettant de préciser les dimensions de la tentation qui importe le plus à l’oeuvre pascalienne. C’est ce que l’article examine en insistant d’abord sur la force attractive d’une tentation infinie, puis sur l’épreuve qu’elle constitue et enfin sur l’ignorance du retrait de Dieu dont elle témoigne. Plus que la lutte contre les tentations, comptent ainsi pour Pascal le dynamisme antithétique du péché et de la grâce, la noirceur insondable du mal et, plus que tout, son opposition à la recherche sincère de Dieu qui définit, dans une partie des Pensées , un projet bien plus consolateur et lumineux que la tradition ne l’a dit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".