Le rôle des <i>affects</i> : absurde et inquiétude chez Albert Camus et Jacques Lavigne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’absurdité du monde et l’inquiétude face au sens de l’existence semblent être des affects négatifs. Par un dialogue entre Albert Camus et Jacques Lavigne, nous tenterons d’explorer le caractère créatif de ces affects. Camus et Lavigne partent d’une critique du matérialisme et de l’idéalisme afin d’ancrer leur théorie dans l’existence, en pensant conjointement les idées et la matérialité. Ils découvrent le rôle précieux de l’absurde et de l’inquiétude. Ces affects agissent comme vecteurs de l’action humaine et permettent d’initier le sujet à la solidarité. Néanmoins, la société est organisée de telle manière que le sujet doit constamment s’opposer à la possibilité d’une neutralisation de ses affects. En ce sens, rester inquiet et conscient de l’absurdité de l’existence appelle une résistance du sujet.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".