MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415001449 · doi:10.7202/1035282ar

Iconoscopy Between Phaneroscopy and Semeiotic

2016· article· en· W2415001449 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
André De Tienne

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches sémiotiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPragmatism in Philosophy and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSign (mathematics)PerceptSemioticsPhenomenonTransition (genetics)EpistemologyPerceptionImage (mathematics)Phenomenology (philosophy)Meaning (existential)PsychologyPhilosophyComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phaneroscopy and semeiotic study two entities with distinct modes of being : the phaneron and the sign. Each consists in a continuum, one of first intention, the other of second intention, the latter lying within the former. Peirce sought to solve the question of the passage from one to the other since the time of his first publication ‘Upon a New List of Categories’. The mature writings reveal the important role the notion of image plays in this transition. Peirce indeed develops a pragmatic conception of image that turns the latter into the fundamental ingredient of the concrete experience of signs. An image in this sense is not a drawing or a picture, but at first a logical concept with a mathematical basis that helps explain the psychological phenomenon. The image is at the junction between the percept (phaneral element) and the perceptual judgment (the most elementary kind of semiotic event) through the percipuum, and it can be observed through a special kind of activity called iconoscopy. I shall present those properties of the image that allow it to govern the transition between phaneron and sign, and clarify in what sense Peirce could assert that images ‘instigate to judgment’.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.143 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches sémiotiquesSame topicPragmatism in Philosophy and EducationFrench-language works237,207