MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502015158 · doi:10.29173/cf126

La performance de l’origine

2014· article· fr· W1502015158 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueConvergences francophones · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous croyons tous vivre des premières fois. Que ce soit un premier baiser, un premier mot ou même une demande en mariage, notre expérience la plus banale nous pousse à croire qu’il y a des moments qui ouvrent des ruptures se phénoménalisant sous la forme de commencements. Cette sensation de la « première fois » s’étend d’ailleurs au-delà de notre vie quotidienne. La philosophie en porte la trace dans les concepts d’origine, de création ou d’événement. Pourtant, s’ils portent une origine, ces moments se donnent comme de véritables répétitions. Le paradoxe de la répétition à l’origine apparaît d’ailleurs dans un fait linguistique aussi banal que frappant : au théâtre comme au concert, les répétitions tout comme la répétition (générale) ont lieu avant ce que l’on appelle la Première. On ne répète donc pas après la première fois mais avant. Nous pouvons ainsi défendre une conception non-originale de l’origine dans laquelle l’origine elle-même fonctionne comme un double, nous permettant de comprendre que paradoxalement l’originaire n’a rien d’original.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.006

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.227 · 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