WALL, A. Levels of Discourse and levels of dialogue. In: Thomson, C. e DUA, H.R (Org.). Dialogism end cultural criticism. London, Canada: Mestengo Press, 1995. p. 65-82
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O texto de Anthony Wall, pesquisador (Research Chair) do Departamento de Frances, Italiano e Espanhol da Universidade de Calgary, e o ultimo dos quatro artigos da primeira sessao “Problemas de Teoria/ Metodo”, do livro Dialogism and cultural criticism. “Levels of Discourse and levels of dialogue” comeca com uma afi rmacao provocativa: “Certamente, nao e facil saber o que signifi ca, precisamente, dizer que sabemos algo”. Esse e o mote para algumas consideracoes sobre o saber na obra Teeteto, de Platao. Conforme Wall, normalmente, o conhecimento e concebido como resultado de um tipo particular de relacao de poder entre um sujeito que sabe e um objeto que e sabido/conhecido. Nesse sentido, evoca Theodor Adorno, em Against Epistemology, que considera a cisao objeto/sujeito uma resposta fi losofi ca as cisoes sociais, criadas pela especializacao de pessoas a quem se permite fazer apenas certos trabalhos. Esse modelo de conhecimento perpetua estruturas de poder. Essa concepcao de sujeito e objeto do conhecimento concebidos separadamente torna-se extremamente problematica ao lidar-se com conhecimentos sobre sociedades humanas ou produtos culturais. Para Wall, a teoria literaria, em grande parte, vem adotando uma perspectiva critica em relacao a essa separacao na tentativa de desenvolver um modelo adequado para produtos culturais e trabalhos literarios em particular.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".