MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781708522 · doi:10.22456/2594-8962.79455

Analyse du discours et théorie du discours social Problématiques, programmes, méthodes

2018· article· fr· W2781708522 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Angenot

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Conexão Letras · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyDoxaSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’histoire des idées englobe deux sortes de démarches, celle des évolutions, des devenirs et celle de la description en coupe temporelle d’un état de la culture intellectuelle, l’étude de la coexistence d’«idées» mises en discours, de «représentations» et de «croyances». Dans ce contexte de synchronie, l’auteur présente la théorie du discours social qui vise à analyser en totalité la représentation discursive du monde telle qu’elle s’exprime dans un état de société. Il définit ensuite les notions fondamentales : hégémonie discursive, charme des discours, champs discursifs, Interdiscursivité, sociogramme, doxa...

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 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), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.289 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Conexão LetrasSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207