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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.117
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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