Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans leur critique de l’épistémologie « médiationnelle », Dreyfus et Taylor se revendiquent explicitement de l’héritage merleau-pontien. Leur critique s’articule sur deux fronts, à savoir la critique du représentationalisme et celle du fondationalisme, qui sont les deux éléments constitutifs par excellence de l’épistémologie médiationnelle. Affirmer la valeur d’une position comme celle défendue par Dreyfus, Taylor et Merleau-Ponty ne peut cependant se faire qu’à la condition de bien vouloir la mettre à l’épreuve et en interroger les présupposés. Dans cet article, nous nous demanderons, en retournant aux textes de Merleau-Ponty, si la critique de l’épistémologie médiationnelle ne retombe pas elle-même dans une forme insoupçonnée de fondationalisme. Pour ce faire, nous mettrons Merleau-Ponty à l’épreuve de Sellars et sa critique du donné (Given).
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".