MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041822183 · doi:10.4000/studifrancesi.8926

Isabelle Chanteloube, La scène d’énonciation de Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Etude des dispositifs énonciatifs dans les «incipit» des œuvres de Rousseau

2008· article· fr· W3041822183 on OpenAlexaff
Paola Sosso

Bibliographic record

VenueStudi Francesi · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des Laurentides
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Après tant d’ouvrages consacrés aux paradoxes et à l’éloquence de Rousseau, si loin des modes de communication de son époque, en voilà un qui s’appuie sur le concept pragmatique de «scène d’énonciation»; l’Auteur souligne d’abord l’homogénéité de l’œuvre du Genevois sur le plan linguistique, car il a une prédilection pour le discours (en tant qu’opposé au récit selon la distinction d’Emile Benveniste). Evidente apparaît aussi la valeur performative, selon la formule d’Austin: «dire c’est fair...

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudi FrancesiSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207