MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030827822 · doi:10.7202/011875ar

Une analyse dichotomique du paradoxe de l’examen-surprise

2005· article· fr· W2030827822 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Franceschi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophiques · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychology of Social Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurpriseHumanitiesPhilosophyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Je présenterai dans ce qui suit un cadre conceptuel nouveau pour résoudre le « paradoxe de l’examen-surprise » ( surprise examination paradox , soit SEP), en ce sens qu’il réorganise en les adaptant plusieurs éléments de solution décrits dans la littérature. La solution proposée ici repose sur les éléments essentiels suivants : a) une distinction entre analyse moniste et dichotomique du paradoxe ; b) l’introduction d’une définition matricielle, qui sert de support à différentes variations du paradoxe ; c) la distinction entre une définition conjointe et disjointe des cas de surprise et de non-surprise conduisant à deux notions structurellement distinctes de surprise.

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), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophiquesSame topicPsychology of Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207