Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte tente de poser les jalons d’une critique interne et reconstructrice de la Théorie de l’agir communicationnel. A travers la discussion de penseurs chers à Jürgen Habermas (C.S. Peirce, K. Bühler, G. H. Mead), l’auteur plaide pour une « sensibilisation » du modèle de rationalité développé par le francfortois, condition d’une meilleure capacité de description des situations et processus de communication, autrement dit, d’un plus grand réalisme de la théorie : réalisme sémiotique , par la prise en compte de l’instabilité de la signification dans les situations d’interlocution (Bühler) et de la multi-modalité de sémioses combinant le symbolique, l’indiciel et l’iconique, aspects de tiercéité, de secondéité et de priméité (Peirce) ; réalisme écologique , à travers une plus grande attention pour les situations concrètes, pour les corps qui soutiennent la communication, ainsi que pour les milieux qui l’accueillent et la reçoivent (Mead).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".