Bibliographic record
Abstract
We will first present our interpretation of François Rastier’s theory of anthropic zones and discuss how to use it. Next, extending François Rastier’s theory on the three levels of social practices – phenophysical, semiotic, and representational – we will integratethe concepts of anthropic zones and levels of social practices into a larger whole that we describe as a system of “anthropic levels”, that is to say, ontological levels in which human beings exist and move. Extending Rastier’s distinction between the phenophysical (the world as we perceive it) and, implicitly, the noumenophysical (the world as it is in itself), we will apply the pheno-/noumeno- distinction to all the major levels and their subdivisions. We will, of course, discuss whether the noumeno- dimension exists. Different reductions (whether justified or unjustified) are possible between levels of a higher or lower order, andbetween levels of the same order. For example, to take the example of the semiotic level: the semiotic can be reduced to the physical (signifiers would then be physical stimuli) or to the representational (signifieds would then be mental images); the physical can be reduced to the semiotic (e.g., in Greimas’s semiotics of the natural world), and the cognitive to the semiotic (according to the cognitive semiotics of Groupe μ). To give another example, in some theories (e.g., Berkeley’s solipsism and the Buddhist principle of cittamātra), the physical is reduced to the cognitive: the mind creates the world — thought solidified — whether it does so at every moment or once and for all.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".