Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, a reappraisal of S. Moscovici's theory of social representations is proposed, a reappraisal based on J. Habennas' and A. Giddens' theoretical approaches. The author argues that S. Moscovici's common‐sense knowledge theorization remains relevant, as long as it is read and understood in light of the conditions peculiar to modern advanced societies, where doubt and discussion are exacerbated to the detriment of immediate trust and a supposedly unproblematic consensus. The construction of “common sense” has to be understood in a way that embraces the exigencies of the contemporary context. L'auteure propose une relecture de la théorie des représentations sociales de S. Moscovici à la lumière des perspectives de J. Habermas et de A. Giddens. La théorisation de la connaissance de sens commun proposée par Moscovici demeure pertinente à la condition, selon l'au‐teure, de la replacer dans les conditions des sociétés modernes avancées, lesquelles font s'exacerber le doute et la discussion au détriment de la confiance immédiate et du consensus présumé non problématique. La formation des «lieux communs» doit être pensée de façon à tenir compte des exigences imposées par le contexte contemporain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".