La désignation de l’olfaction est-elle singulière parmi les perceptions sensorielles ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le thème de ce travail est la façon dont on parle des perceptions obtenues par les différents sens. Il s’agit d’identifier la désignation hyperonymique pouvant s’appliquer à l’ensemble des perceptions accessibles à un sens, et de savoir si ces désignations sont comparables pour les différents sens. Nous considérons d’abord les désignations hyperonymiques fournies par les travaux lexicographiques. Nous analysons ensuite la distribution des hyperonymes identifiés dans trois corpus de français vernaculaire. Les résultats permettent d’établir que, si les fonctionnements des désignations hyperonymiques de nos perceptions olfactives, auditives et gustatives sont dans l’ensemble comparables, ce n’est pas le cas de celles de nos perceptions tactiles et visuelles. Si ces résultats étaient confirmés à travers les langues, cela validerait l’idée que tous les sens n’ont pas la même importance comme source d’information, la vision ayant un statut particulier.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".