MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070485537 · doi:10.1017/s0012217300005448

Descartes and Gadamer on Prejudice

2002· article· fr· W2070485537 on OpenAlexaff
Donald Ipperciel

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogue · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Philosophy and Science
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College Saint-JeanUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesEthnologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Les aspects polémiques et rhétoriques de la réhabilitation des préjugés chez Gadamer font non settlement violence à la pensée de Descartes, mais obscurcissent le sens véritable de la théorie gadamérienne sur ce point. Pour en arriver à une compréhension plus adéquate de la position de Gadamer, il faut rendre explicites différents éléments qui renvoient à des motifs de la Kehre heideggérienne et mettre l'accent sur le rôle de principes herméneutiques développés par Gadamer, tels la tradition et le langage. On peut alors arguer que la pomme de discorde entre Descartes et Gadamer ne se trouvepas dans la théorie des préjugés, lew position sur cette question étant plus complémentaire qu'opposée, mais dans la théorie de la subjectivité.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.140 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogueSame topicHistorical Philosophy and ScienceFrench-language works237,207