Michael A. Gilbert : Ne pas argumenter logiquement n’est pas illogique : il y a d’autres façons de communiquer des arguments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".