Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il s’agira de montrer ce que serait l’apport, en éthique appliquée, d’une approche herméneutique ou interprétative, prenant en compte tant les discussions en philosophie depuis Dilthey et Gadamer que les développements en sciences sociales depuis Weber et Simmel (sociologie compréhensive ou verstehende soziologie ). Cette lignée va d’un côté jusqu’aux interactionnistes, dans la ligne des pragmatistes que sont Peirce, James, Dewey et Mead, et de l’autre jusqu’à Umberto Eco, rarement associé explicitement à l’herméneutique. Le travail descriptif qui est plus appelé que développé ici comme piste de méthode requiert ainsi un détour par la réflexion épistémologique en sciences humaines et sociales. L’analyse de discours et même de conversation pourraient dès lors devenir des méthodes permettant d’attester des actes de parole pertinents pour l’éthique, dans une approche à la fois compréhensive et descriptive
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".