MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323032823 · doi:10.32629/jher.v4i1.1137

An Analysis of Montaigne’s Final Essay, Of Experience

2023· article· en· W4323032823 on OpenAlexaff
Bailin Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Higher Education Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudgementCriticismIdeal (ethics)EpistemologyPhilosophyPsychologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the final essay of Montaigne, named Of Experience, the author gave extensive criticism over the general misuse of judgement, while defining judgement quite peculiarly, which is that it is a faculty of the mind. How then, was this faculty that appears to be the rational part of the human mind but individuated from reasons defined by Montaigne? In what way do humans fail to properly utilize this faculty? What is the role of experience in the proper use of judgment? These questions shall be answered through a thorough analysis of this final work of the French thinker, through which we may find the form of the ideal that he looks to portray.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Higher Education ResearchSame topicFrench Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207