MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157142594 · doi:10.7202/030630ar

Raison et déraison dans la Lettre de Lord Chandos de Hofmannsthal (suite)

2005· article· fr· W2157142594 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Claude Zilberberg

Bibliographic record

VenueProtée · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude se propose trois objectifs. En premier lieu, elle aborde le texte de Hofmannsthal d’une manière traditionnelle afin de montrer les limites de cette approche. En second lieu, elle s’efforce d’appliquer les hypothèses avancées par la sémiotique tensive (Fontanille-Zilberberg), hypothèses qui consistent pour l’essentiel dans la grammaticalisation de la circulation en discours des valences intensives et extensives. Enfin, une leçon émerge, nous semble-t-il, peu à peu, à savoir que l’affectivité ne se tient pas à la périphérie du sens, mais en son coeur même et, pour le dire sans précaution, l’affectivité devient la clef de la rationalité de ce type de discours, c’est-à-dire ce qu’il y a à comprendre dans l’acte de la lecture.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207