Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focusses on a definition of the notion of common sense drawn on the inheritance of the philosophical concept of sensus communis. The Cartesian idea of “bon sens” as a disposition–the faculty of judgment–is contested. Defining common sense as knowledge held in common by a number of subjects allows us to set forth the nature of the relationship that underlies the social group. The conception of common sense proposed here is twofold. On the one hand, it represents the knowledge involved in action and is characterized as the ability to think and act in common with others. It is thus a sense of community. On the other hand, it is also a corpus of passive knowledge that forms the background of action and communication, a stock of articulated or tacit practical knowledge. L'article présente une définition de la notion de sens commun à partir de L'évocation des idées contenues dans le concept philosophique sensus communis. La conception cartésienne du bon sens en tant que faculté intellectuelle est contestée au profit d'une autre compréhension du sens commun. C'est en délimitant un sujet collectif du jugement du sens commun qu'on peut opter pour une définition de la communauté et du lien social qui y est impliqué. Le sens commun se dresse alors comme un corpus de connaissances à deux volets: en tant que connais‐sance active, il exprime L'aptitude a penser et à agir en commun avec autrui, il est ainsi un sens de la communauté; en tant que connaissance passive, il forme L'arrière‐plan de L'action et de la communication, une réserve de connaissances tacites ou articulées. Whatever view we hold, it must be shown. Why every lover has a wish to make Some other kind of otherness his own: Perhaps in fact we never are alone. Auden, Alone
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".