Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une tâche importante en philosophie est la lecture et l’analyse de textes pour en dégager les concepts. L’objectif de la présente étude est d’explorer la possibilité d’une assistance computationnelle pour effectuer cette tâche. Une méthode classique est le concordancier, mais celle-ci ne permet pas de distinguer les extraits où le concept n’est pas exprimé de manière canonique. Nous proposons une méthode permettant de reconnaître ces extraits, que nous appliquons à un corpus d’articles de la revue Philosophiques. Nous déterminons d’abord les extraits où le concept est exprimé de manière explicite. Ensuite, nous déterminons les extraits les moins susceptibles d’exprimer le concept cible. Enfin, nous utilisons plusieurs classifieurs afin de distinguer les extraits où le concept est exprimé de manière implicite. Les résultats montrent une différence significative entre les classifieurs les plus performants, machines à vecteurs de support et réseaux de neurones, et certains modèles probabilistes classiques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".