Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Various phrases such as “social implications”, social impact” and “ethical, legal and social implications” are used to indicate the impact of a given scientific or technological advancements on the ‘social’. The impact on the ‘social’ is one focus of science and technology governance discussions. Many terms and phrases can be used to audit the engagement of a given technology (such as quantum technologies) with the ‘social’. Marginalized groups are particularly impacted by the ‘social’. Equity, Diversity, and, Inclusion (EDI) and similar phrases are part of discussing the ‘social’. EDI frameworks and phrases are employed as policy concepts to decrease the research, education, and general workplace problems members of marginalized groups such as women, Indigenous peoples, visible/racialized minorities, disabled people, and LGBTQ2S+ encounter at universities and other workplaces. How quantum technologies-focused discussions engage with the ‘social’ can impact EDI activities, and quantum technologies-focused discussions can be impacted in turn by EDI activities. The objective of this study was to map the engagement with the ‘social’ in the quantum technologies-focused academic literature. A scoping review coupled with a manifest coding approach was used to answer three research questions: (1) Which terms, phrases, and measures that can be seen to cover aspects of the ‘social’ are present in the quantum technologies-focused academic literature? (2) To what extent are EDI frameworks and phrases present in the quantum technologies-focused academic literature? (3) Which marginalized groups visible in EDI discourses are covered in the quantum technologies-focused academic literature? Using the academic databases SCOPUS, EBSCO-HOST, Web of Science, Compendex, Inspec Archive, and Knovel, 362,728 English language abstracts were obtained for the manifest coding using 62 Quantum-related technical phrases and 1062 English language abstracts were obtained using 17 non-technical Quantum-related phrases. Within the 362,728 abstracts of the 200 terms and phrases (which did not have to contain the term “social”) used to answer the research questions, 87 were not mentioned in any abstracts, 47 were mentioned in less than 10, 30 were mentioned in between 10 and 100, and 29 were mentioned in over 100 abstracts. Within the 1062 abstracts, 164 terms and phrases were not mentioned at all, 19 were mentioned in over 10, 8 were mentioned in between 10 and 100 (all false positive), and one was mentioned in over 100 abstracts (false positive). The term “social” or phrases containing “social” appeared in only 867 of the 362,728 abstracts and only 10 of the 1062 abstracts. EDI frameworks and phrases were not present in the 362,728 abstracts and 1062 abstracts, and many marginalized groups engaged with in EDI discussions were not present in the 362,728 and 1062 abstracts either. The results reveal vast opportunities to engage with the ‘social’ of quantum technologies in many different ways, including through EDI frameworks and concepts and by engaging with marginalized groups covered under EDI.
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 | 0,121 | 0,280 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,059 | 0,055 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 ».