MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1513009034 · doi:10.7202/1025997ar

Critique de la raison rhétorique. Pour une analyse heuristique du discours

2014· article· fr· W1513009034 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mawusse Kpakpo Akue Adotevi

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de recherche sociologique · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce texte répond à l’interrogation principale suivante : si l’on considère la nouvelle rhétorique comme champ paradigmatique de l’analyse du discours, alors sur quoi repose-t-elle comme principe qui l’oriente et qui en justifie la pertinence heuristique ? L’on commence d’abord par montrer que la nouvelle rhétorique est le paradigme qui convient à l’analyse du discours. Ensuite, l’on évalue la pertinence heuristique de la nouvelle rhétorique en révélant l’insuffisance du principe de raison élargie qui la sous-tend. Ce qui permet d’envisager un concept autre de raison qui permette une analyse véritablement descriptive des pratiques discursives.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.025
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de recherche sociologiqueSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207