MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W946822893 · doi:10.22329/p.v4i1.1191

Est-il possible de dire l’éthique de la proximité? Contribution au dossier Kierkegaard – Levinas

2009· article· fr· W946822893 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dominic Desroches

Bibliographic record

VenuePhaenEx · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quand il se positionne face à Kierkegaard, Levinas a le réflexe de placer la pensée de l’auteur danois dans un idéalisme abstrait. Ce réflexe le conduit à croire que le Moi existentiel, égoïste, se détache de l’autre dans la violence et se trouve impuissant à revenir sur lui-même. Cet article veut montrer que, nonobstant cette critique, les deux auteurs, attentifs aux limites du langage, partagent de nombreux points en commun, tant et si bien qu’ils sont peut-être les deux plus grands représentants d’une éthique de la proximité qui tente d’échapper au langage totalisant de la métaphysique.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhaenExSame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207