Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article traite de la problématique de l’imagerie mentale lors de l’interprétation des signifiés iconiques. Il s’agit d’interroger, pour l’énoncé iconique, l’hypothèse de François Rastier selon laquelle « [...] les images mentales sont contraintes (mais non entièrement déterminées) par les signifiés [en contexte] » (RASTIER,1991, p. 242), étant entendu que, dans la systématique rastiérienne, le signifié, qui appartient à la sphère sémiotique, se distingue du concept, qui relève de la sphère cognitive. Plus exactement, il s’agitde transposer à la sémiosis visuellele concept desimulacre multimodal proposépar RASTIER (1991), sorte de contenu eidétique qui serait généré ou du moins sollicité par la structure sémantique du message. Dans cette hypothèse, l’interprétation du signe iconique susciterait cognitivement des présentations associant potentiellement différentes modalités sensorielles représentées et éventuellement des traits abstraits. La transposition conceptuelle que propose le présent article intègre aux propositions rastiériennes les résultats des travaux de la psychologie cognitive sur l’imagerie mentale.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".