MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597997130 · doi:10.4000/signata.283

L’énonciation à la croisée des approches. Comment faire dialoguer la linguistique et la sémiotique ?

2010· article· fr· W2597997130 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSignata · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cette étude, il s’agit de faire dialoguer la sémiotique et la linguistique autour de la vaste question de l’énonciation. Prenant appui sur des textes majeurs en linguistique et en sémiotique de ces dix dernières années, on focalisera l’attention successivement sur la deixis, la prise en charge énonciative ainsi que sur le discours rapporté/représenté, le dialogisme et la polyphonie. Finalement, on montrera à quel point la réflexion contemporaine sur les pratiques, le style ou la figuralité met à profit la confrontation des points de vue.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.283 · 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