MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051900117 · doi:10.4000/communication.3570

Le cadre éristique du débat argumentatif

2012· article· fr· W2051900117 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’auteur soutient que les débats publics ne sont plus de véritables échanges argumentatifs en raison du cadre éristique dans lequel ils sont menés. Le concept est emprunté à Schopenhauer, mais le sens premier de procédé discursif a été élargi. À l’aide du débat québécois sur la laïcité, six composantes du concept élargi d’éristique sont dégagées et analysées : l’intensification d’une opposition superficielle ou marginale, le découpage de la question, la théorisation nébuleuse, le positionnement par rapport à l’adversaire, l’usage d’arguments stratégiques et la considération d’un élément contextuel périphérique.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.256 · 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