MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2578740780 · doi:10.7202/1038540ar

La lettre tue particulièrement dans la Doctrine de la science

2017· article· fr· W2578740780 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueLaval théologique et philosophique · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilosophical and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Il est symptomatique que Fichte ait destiné la première version écrite de sa Doctrine de la science (1794-1795) « à ses auditeurs », c’est-à-dire aux étudiants de l’Université d’Iéna où il venait d’entrer en fonction. En effet, Fichte a toujours cru que la lettre de l’exposé proprement scientifique de sa philosophie devait être accompagnée d’une explicitation orale, privilégiant ainsi un contact direct avec l’auditoire en vue d’éviter les malentendus. Tout au long de sa carrière, il s’est en vérité résolument méfié de l’« écrit » et c’est la radicalité de cette attitude qui explique en partie le différend qui s’est fait jour entre lui et Schiller à propos de l’article sur l’« esprit et la lettre en philosophie ». Ces deux termes prennent sous la plume de Fichte une signification inattendue qui témoigne de manière privilégiée de la façon dont il envisage la philosophie transcendantale et son mode de transmission.

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.021
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.307 · 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