MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

L’âge classique en sciences cognitives : de la continuité revendiquée à la rupture

2022· book-chapter· fr· W4392570722 on OpenAlexaff
Sandrine Roux

Bibliographic record

VenueÉditions de la Sorbonne eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Labour, Employment and Social Solidarity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis leur essor dans la seconde moitié du xxe siècle, les sciences cognitives n’ont cessé de mobiliser la philosophie et son histoire. La référence à l’âge classique (xviie-xviiie siècles) est particulièrement importante. C’est à cette période que se seraient développés plusieurs intuitions, concepts et problèmes qui seront, quelques siècles plus tard, au fondement et au centre de la « révolution cognitive » du xxe siècle. Aussi est-ce au xviie siècle que l’on fait souvent commencer l’hist...

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.032
Scholarly communication0.0170.026
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueÉditions de la Sorbonne eBooksSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207