Bibliographic record
Abstract
Après les travaux de Jaako Hintikka, de David Stern et, plus récemment, de Denis Perrin, l’idée qu’il y ait une réflexion wittgensteinienne sur le temps et qu’elle soit à l’origine de l’abandon d’un projet de langage phénoménologique n’a plus rien de surprenant, mais on ne peut pas pour autant la considérer établie. Il me semble qu’un élément important de ce débat se trouve au chapitre VII des Remarques philosophiques : en effet, on y trouve la première discussion suivie sur la possibilité d’un langage phénoménologique — discussion évidemment axée sur la question du temps. Sans prétendre à une lecture « alternative » de la réflexion de Wittgenstein sur le temps et le langage phénoménologique, je voudrais mettre en évidence l’importance de ce chapitre pour ce problème et aussi essayer de montrer que la clé de sa lecture doit être recherchée dans une reductio ad absurdum dont la base est l’impossibilité de mesurer le temps.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".