MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887217732 · doi:10.1017/s0012217318000306

Fondamentalisme ou constructivisme des raisons? Les limites du réalisme normatif de Thomas Scanlon

2018· article· fr· W2887217732 on OpenAlexaff
Félix Aubé Beaudoin, Patrick Turmel

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogue · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPhilosophy and Theoretical Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet article, nous soutenons que le fondamentalisme des raisons défendu par T.M. Scanlon fait face à deux difficultés importantes — l’une ontologique, l’autre épistémologique —, soit leproblème de la permissivité ontologiqueet ledéfi de la fiabilité. Nous suggérons que le constructivisme formel permet de les éviter et que Scanlon gagnerait à l’adopter. Nous montrons également que ses trois principales objections envers cette théorie reposent soit sur une mécompréhension du constructivisme formel, soit sur une pétition de principe en faveur du réalisme.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.046
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogueSame topicPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFrench-language works237,207