Bibliographic record
Abstract
La présente réflexion met en lumière la portée prophétique de Du sens d’A. J. Greimas. L’auteure s’attarde sur les notions-clés d’engendrement du sens discursif et de conditions de la production des récits en circonscrivant une filiation entre ces concepts élaborés dans l’ouvrage de 1970 et leurs prolongements et affinements inaugurés par la sémiotique des passions. On fait état ici de deux sphères principales de théorisation ayant leur ancrage dans l’ouvrage Du sens , à savoir le rôle de la perception dans la mise au jour et le façonnement discursif de la signification ainsi que le corrélat syntaxique de la perception, incarné notamment par les modalités, des procès de modalisation et d’aspectualisation, porteurs de proprioceptivité au plan du discours. Faisant valoir la contribution du texte fondateur de Greimas aux préoccupations contemporaines de la sémiotique, l’article contribue à dédramatiser l’image de rupture qui tend à persister entre les deux visages de la sémiotique européenne, discontinue et continue.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.016 |
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".