Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se propose de questionner la possibilite de fonder l’interpretation sur un critere neutre, possibilite revendiquee tant par l’hermeneutique philosophique que par la semiotique afin de rendre compte a la fois du processus de fixation du sens et de celui de sa circulation – de celui des pratiques interpretatives qui en decoulent. Il est possible de circonscrire ce critere apparemment neutre sous la notion de contexte. L’article suggere que cette notion est insuffisante en elle-meme. L’hermeneutique et la semiotique nous donnent l’indice de cette insuffisance dans la position d’un dialogisme qui doit intervenir comme fondement ultime du contexte interpretatif. Nous suivrons tout d’abord la facon dont ce dialogisme se dessine chez Gadamer et Peirce, jusqu’a apparaitre problematique. Nous montrerons ensuite que ce caractere problematique n’est elude que par le recours a un « capitalisme dialogique » selon lequel le sens fait l’objet d’une negociation qui garantit en derniere instance son objectivite. Finalement, nous proposerons de repenser le dialogue a partir de la notion d’interruption, de telle sorte que le sens ne se trouve plus derive a partir de l’experience d’une soi-disant entente intersubjective, mais qu’il apparaisse plutot comme l’experience meme de la de-liaison – structure du rapport a l’autre – en tant que celle-ci fonde toute dimension signifiante.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.007 |
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".