MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112288597 · doi:10.7202/030554ar

La lecture est-elle un dialogue?

2005· article· fr· W2112288597 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marie Cusson

Bibliographic record

VenueProtée · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le concept de dialogue est utilisé de façon courante pour caractériser la lecture dans le champ des études sur la réception. Mais s’agit-il d’un terme vraiment approprié pour désigner cette activité ? À l’encontre de ce que soutiennent des penseurs comme Hans- Georg Gadamer ou Mikhaïl Bakhtine, Paul Ricoeur estime que le texte « transcende » la situation de dialogue. Bien qu’elle soit un défi critique, l’opinion de Ricoeur doit être considérée si l’on veut conserver le concept de dialogue parmi les concepts théoriques contemporains en sciences humaines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.019
Scholarly communication0.0170.018
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProtéeSame topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207