Bibliographic record
Abstract
Je me préoccupe dans cet article d’un problème soulevé il y a plus de deux cents ans dans le Laocoön, qui oppose entre les signes picturaux et textuels une différence de support et de dimensionnalité. Or, aucune sémiotique ou sémiologie « rigoureuse » ne se permettrait le luxe d’avoir deux définitions distinctes du signe, l’une qui s’appliquerait aux signes linguistiques, textuels, et l’autre réservée à des signes picturaux. Ce problème a ainsi fait l’objet au cours de ce siècle de différentes tentatives de réponses dont deux qui m’intéressent plus particulièrement. La première s’inscrit dans l’optique du tournant linguistique ; la seconde est la sémiotique de Peirce, dont la composante la plus pertinente est la logique des icônes. C’est le problème posé dans ce contexte par la métaphore, qui servira d’illustration des différences fondamentales qu’on peut constater entre les deux approches.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".