MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081597872 · doi:10.1017/s0012217320000207

Jeux dialogiques et processus discursif. Conséquences du débat entre Habermas et Brandom

2020· article· fr· W3081597872 on OpenAlexaff
Yaël Sebban

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogue · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsCégep de l'Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Dans cet article, nous soutenons que Habermas réduit, dans l'essai critique sur Brandom inclus dans Vérité et justification (2001), la communication à sa forme étroitement dialogique et, ce faisant, tend à ignorer que le processus discursif est avant tout, pour Brandom, le produit d'une coordination partagée de différentes perspectives individuelles contribuant à faire avancer ce jeu de production et de demande de raisons. Nous proposons, d'une part, de procéder à une analyse critique de la position de Habermas, et d'autre part, de rendre justice à Brandom en soulignant la spécificité du processus communicatif discursif.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogueSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207