Entre schéma historique et analyse spécifique : quel concept de contradiction ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article propose une analyse du concept de contradiction dans l’oeuvre de Marx et plus spécifiquement dans le premier livre du Capital . Cette étude vise à mettre en lumière un écart entre deux usages du concept qui se côtoient chez Marx. Un premier usage le mobilise dans un schéma historique général qui explique les transitions de modes de production par la contradiction entre le développement des forces productives et les rapports de production d’une époque donnée. Un second usage l’utilise pour décrire spécifiquement la contradiction de l’accumulation capitaliste en montrant comment elle pose problème selon ses propres critères. Dans cet article, nous tentons de démontrer que le second usage n’implique pas nécessairement le premier et qu’il doit être privilégié lorsqu’il s’agit de se réapproprier le concept de contradiction en tant qu’il permet d’éviter les écueils déterministes et mécanistes du premier usage.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".