Christopher Tindale : Explorer les fondements culturels de la rhétorique et de la raison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’entretien mené avec Christopher Tindale par Ruth Amossy dans ce numéro spécial sur les défis lancés à la rhétorique propose un tour d’horizon du travail innovant du chercheur canadien. Passant de la logique informelle à une théorie de l’argumentation rhétorique, Tindale aboutit finalement à une approche anthropologique qui met au défi la tradition rhétorique occidentale. Cette approche part du principe que les modes de raisonnement dépendent de la culture et que les arguments, en tant qu’expression de la raison, peuvent prendre de nombreuses formes au-delà de celles que repère et décrit la tradition occidentale. Tindale aborde donc la question de la communication interculturelle dans sa dimension argumentative. Dans ce cadre, il présente une « rhétorique de la rencontre » qui explore la rencontre entre des personnes issues de cultures très différentes et examine comment un environnement cognitif mutuel peut, au fil du temps, émerger et permettre un échange argumentatif.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".