MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135693205 · doi:10.7202/1075401ar

QU’EST-CE QUI VALIDE UNE INTERPRÉTATION ? QU’ELLE SOIT « VRAIE » OU QU’ELLE SOIT « JUSTE » ?

2021· article· fr· W3135693205 on OpenAlexaff
Alain Gignac

Bibliographic record

VenueScience et Esprit · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qu’est-ce qui valide ou non l’interprétation d’un texte biblique ? Il s’agirait d’un critère de justesse et de justice qui permet une pluralité de lectures tout en excluant toute lecture « injuste », c’est-à-dire non ajustée au texte et/ou engendrant des mécaniques d’injustice. Avant de spécifier huit critères de validation plus précis, l’article insiste sur l’importance du cadre épistémologique (à identifier), de la distinction entre expliquer et comprendre (à distinguer sans séparer), et de la dimension politique (avec la multiplicité des acteurs) pour appréhender la démarche herméneutique dans toute sa complexité.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.036
Scholarly communication0.0210.015
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience et EspritSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207