Les discours des manuels de philosophie en France et au Brésil : une analyse contrastive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le thème de cette étude est la comparaison des discours de manuels scolaires de philosophie français et brésiliens. Notre objectif est de dégager les représentations que l’on se fait de la philosophie dans un corpus de manuels français et brésiliens au moyen de l’approche interdisciplinaire qu’est l’analyse du discours ou la « linguistique de discours comparative ». Nous exposerons d’abord le contexte de l’enseignement de cette discipline en France et au Brésil. Ensuite, nous présenterons des questions relatives au corpus ainsi qu’au modèle interdisciplinaire adopté pour son analyse, le modèle de description et interprétation (von Münchow, 2004). Quelques hypothèses sur les représentations de la philosophie qui circulent dans les communautés ethnolinguistiques française et brésilienne seront présentées à la fin de cet article.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".