MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802419289 · doi:10.3406/stice.2004.897

Ontologies : antinomies, contradictions et autres difficultés épistémologiques du concept

2004· article· fr· W2802419289 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Robillard

Bibliographic record

VenueSciences et Technologies de l Information et de la Communication pour l Éducation et la Formation · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQ
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologySensibilityEpistemologySubject (documents)Fundamental ontologyPhilosophySociologyCognitive sciencePsychologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article studies the concept of ontology used in cognitive science (CS). The logic of the subject and its methodological significance will be given the most attention. The thesis is that apart from having high epistemological aims and running counter to philosophic sensibility, the concept of ontology used in CS contradicts itself.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.053
Scholarly communication0.0140.032
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0050.009
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciences et Technologies de l Information et de la Communication pour l Éducation et la FormationSame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207