Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, l’auteur se propose de discuter de la légitimité scientifique des représentations mentales en organisant son argumentation autour des thèses héritées de la querelle des universaux. Il s’agit tout d’abord de suggérer que les représentations seraient le produit de notre entendement. Puis, d’essayer de prouver leur existence, pour s’assurer qu’elles sont bien des choses. Pour terminer, l’auteur est amené à constater que les représentations n’ont, peut-être, aucune existence, qu’elles ne sont qu’« émission de la voix ». Ce texte sera ainsi l’occasion d’essayer de faire une synthèse de ce que l’on sait aujourd’hui des représentations en allant interroger d’autres disciplines que la communication et de tenter de suggérer que cette interdiscipline pourrait trouver grands profits à s’ouvrir aux apports des neurosciences et des sciences cognitives.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".