MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394855855 · doi:10.4000/aad.8017

Michael A. Gilbert : Ne pas argumenter logiquement n’est pas illogique : il y a d’autres façons de communiquer des arguments

2024· article· fr· W4394855855 on OpenAlex
Michael A. Gilbert, Linda Carozza

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueArgumentation et analyse du discours · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Michael A. Gilbert a apporté une contribution significative à la théorie contemporaine de l’argumentation. Ses apports les plus remarquables résident dans sa théorie multimodale de l’argumentation et dans sa théorie de l’argumentation dite « coalescente », des modèles novateurs qu’il a développés pour étudier la façon dont les interlocuteurs discutent réellement dans la vie courante. Ses idées n’ont pas toujours été comprises, appréciées ou reconnues par l’ensemble de la communauté des spécialistes d’argumentation. Néanmoins, récemment, le Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (en Ontario, au Canada) a reconnu l’importance de sa contribution en organisant un institut d’une semaine entière consacré à ses travaux. Aussi provocantes que puissent paraître ses théories, les spécialistes de la rhétorique n’en peuvent pas moins trouver un certain terrain d’entente avec ses travaux.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.280 · 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