MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772172799 · doi:10.4000/erea.5970

Les manipulations du discours de séduction : éclairage pragmatique

2017· article· fr· W2772172799 on OpenAlexaff
Didier Maillat

Bibliographic record

VenueE-rea · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-Appalache
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesExplicationPsychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le discours manipulatoire peut se décrire comme une stratégie visant à faire dérailler les processus interprétatifs. Au moyen de la théorie pragmatique de la Contrainte de Sélection de Contexte, on explique comment un locuteur-manipulateur peut infléchir à son avantage les mécanismes d'interprétation du destinataire. Cet article montre ainsi que certaines stratégies manipulatoires exploitent la séduction pour mettre en place des contraintes fortes à même de piéger l'interprétation du destinataire. L'explication proposée met notamment en jeu certains phénomènes de biais cognitifs bien connus de la littérature en psychologie cognitive pour expliquer les effets recherchés par les stratégies de séduction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE-reaSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207