Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The postulate of adequacy had been extensively questioned and deepened in the area of hermeneutics and interpretive social sciences. Some of the protagonists of this ongoing debate stress that the interpretation of human action has much in common with the interpretation of semiotic objects including texts and narratives. This debate goes back to a long tradition in the philosophy of human or social sciences. Here, considering recent exchanges in the fields of the history of ideas, rhetoric, and ethnography, we address basic epistemological and methodological issues about the interpretation of meaning and its adequacy. We argue that one must ascertain performativity on both sides of the meaning process: on the side of the semiotic object (speech acts, social rituals, texts, images…) and on the side of the interpreter (second-degree understanding, description, explanation…) We also argue that this theoretical discussion is more relevant and fruitful for the humanities and social sciences when it includes the question of writing strategies. In this way, it is possible to envision the practical moment of hermeneutic understanding, embracing its material, ethical, and political dimensions.
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 | 0.044 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".