MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493887848 · doi:10.7202/008189ar

Analyse et représentation des topoï

2000· article· fr· W1493887848 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Louis Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueTangence · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopos theoryHumanitiesPhilosophyMathematicsArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article propose, d’abord, une définition et une caractérisation du topos dans le cadre de la sémantique interprétative, où il est assimilé à une structure sémantique socionormée investissant la sous-composante de la thématique appelée topique ; ensuite, un formalisme de représentation des structures sémantiques en général et des topoï en particulier, les graphes sémantiques (inspirés des conceptual graphs de Sowa); enfin, une représentation et une étude du topos que nous appellerons « le poète méprisé ». Le graphe-type que nous proposons est en fait une généralisation de ce topos : entre autres modifications, le poète y devient un individu exceptionnel et sa production poétique une transmission positive à la collectivité. Cette généralisation permet de montrer la nature transversale, transhistorique, transculturelle, transdiscursive — bref métissée et métissante — du topos, qui recouvre non seulement des occurrences littéraires (Baudelaire, Hugo, etc.), mais également religieuses (La Bible), philosophiques (Platon), lyriques (Aznavour), etc. L’étude topique envisagée ici consiste à mettre en rapport le topos-type et les divers topoï-occurrence qui le manifestent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTangenceSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207