Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur trace un parcours circulant alternativement entre les deux oeuvres de pensée du signe, celles de Peirce et de Saussure, cherchant des points de superposition et des points de décrochage. Il évite la simple opposition affichée dans l’esprit d’une confrontation tout autant que les similarités simplificatrices. Son objectif est de reconnaître les conditions de la construction d’une science des signes, qu’elle soit sémiologie ou sémiotique. Pour ce, il appuie sa réflexion sur quelques thèmes théoriques : la question de la convention; la relation du signe à l’objet mondain ou à “la chose désignée”; l’espace conceptuel et l’élaboration des tableaux théoriques; la question centrale de la temporalité; puis, un fragment terminal qui fera office de conclusion, touchant l’affiliation de la pensée de Saussure chez Roland Barthes, concernant notamment le projet d’une sémiologie. Il marque sa volonté de maintenir le discours à un certain niveau de généralité, cherchant moins à saisir les conceptions abstraites que l’imaginaire de la théorie, la sensibilité aux choses, aux signes et aux mots.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".