God Tricks or Barnes Tricks? Comments on 'What's Wrong with American Regional Science?'
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Let me come right to the point: this essay irritates me enormously. Central to Trevor Barnes' text is the concept of a trick. As best I can determine from the context of his comments, a God trick seems to be a mindset, or a concrete act based thereupon, derived from the belief in a body of disembodied knowledge that aspires to be universal in nature and that is based upon a firm certitude concerning its intellectual position. (I stand to be corrected if this is not the precise definition, but I think that we all get the general idea suggested by the term). My first, and overwhelming reaction to Professor Barnes' essay is that he is guilty of precisely that for which he so vehemently criticizes science: with firm certitude he is applying a universal framework (this one derived from science studies), one that specifically considers all of science as an undifferentiated whole, one that does not take into consideration the local or differences that are so frequently cited in his text. I am told by colleagues that attended the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Regional Science Association in May 2003 that the original focus of this paper was regional in general, not in particular. I am also told that the title change that reflects American science was the result of certain objections that were raised at the time of the presentation. The title notwithstanding, most of the text continues to talk about science, in general, even though most of the discussion concerns individuals working in the US in the period 1950-1970. If I am being unfair to the author, I sincerely apologize, but this is my understanding of the origin and the transformation of this paper. Irrespective of the accuracy of the above information, the final paragraph of the paper (... I am very glad to publish this paper in the Canadian Journal of Regional Science ... long live Canadian science) is an ineffective quick and dirty way out of the problem that the author's universalist approach has created for himself. Even worse, it appears to me to be highly patronizing in tone. This essay is particularly unsatisfactory because it only tells part of the story: the rise and of science is covered (the period 1950 to 1975, approximately), but it fails to mention an equally significant period (1975 to the present) that is characterized by the subsequent renaissance (the fall and rise, if you will) of certain elements within the larger science universe, a renaissance based upon solid applied research conducted with the purpose of contributing to important public policy debates. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,036 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,018 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».