Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This lecture delivered at Victoria College, University of Toronto, concentrates on defining the status to be accorded to any universals. Underlining his desire that semiotics avoid epistemological dissensions and focus instead on establishing its effectiveness, Greimas recalls that he has adopted an “agnostic” constructivist stance and thus declined to affirm whether universals exist in the world or only in the mind. Following Hjelmslev’s middle way, he has identified a set of undefinable terms, then employed them to define each other in a coherent deductive axiomatic. Empirically, he distinguishes different kinds of universals. Absolutely necessary such terms include the interdependent concepts of description and relation. He further distinguishes between paradigmatic and syntagmatic universals. The former notably include the elementary category of the collective semantic universe, nature-culture, and that of the individual semantic universe, life-death. For his fundamental syntactic universal, Greimas declined to adopt the traditional propositional form comprising subject, copula, and predicate, and has opted instead for an alternative featuring a verbal kernel to which are articulated actants defined through grammatical cases. Semiotics identifies these and other hypothetical universals as metalinguistic terms which describe language and other systems of representation, and which define the conditions of their production and comprehension. In contrast to narratology, semiotics thus situates narrative universals within a comprehensive theory of meaning, with a goal to develop the bases of the human sciences in a manner parallel to the foundations of the life sciences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".