MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7067596930

Modularité massive ou construction sociale? : une analyse de l'approche psychoévolutionniste de Cosmides et Tooby.

2010· other· fr· W7067596930 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2010
Typeother
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Subject (documents)Power (physics)Order (exchange)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce mémoire se veut un examen épistémologique de la thèse psychoévolutionniste de Leda Cosmides et John Tooby, principalement en ce qui concerne la modularité massive. Nous avons tâché de voir si la modularité massive permet de rendre compte des processus mentaux complexes en nous penchant plus particulièrement sur le cas des émotions. Nous explorons d'abord la thèse de Cosmides et Tooby en la distinguant d'avec d'autres conceptions comme l'écologie béhaviorale et en expliquant le rôle particulier que jouent les émotions au sein de la théorie. Nous analysons ensuite la thèse de la modularité massive et les différents arguments théoriques ou empiriques qui l'appuient, et évaluons finalement des critiques de la modularité émises par certains philosophes, dont David Buller.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.159 · 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