Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Familiar, Invisible Engine Is Driving the AI Revolution 2 People in 17th-to 20th-century Europe were not smarter or harder working than people in 10th-century Europe.How, then, were they able to figure out the structure of matter and the universe, go flying into space, double the average length of human life, and master the transfer of energy and information-in just 300 years?What was the mysterious mechanism driving science and innovation at such an incredible pace?In my view, David Donoho's (2024) article calls our attention to such a mechanism, the overwhelming effects of which are plain to see, while it itself remains invisible.Elusive as it may be, in what follows I will claim that understanding the mechanism that Donoho is laying out is perhaps the most crucial insight for today's statisticians and data scientists. Cooperation in Large Groups Is a Collective Human SuperpowerWe human beings have an exceptional ability to cooperate in large groups.One can easily make the case that it is this capacity-and not our thumbs-that made us the undisputed masters of our planet.Cooperation in large groups is so natural to us that we hardly ever notice it for the collective superpower that it truly is.Scientists and engineers in 17th-to 20th-century Europe, and gradually everywhere else, could accomplish so much in 300 years because they were able to cooperate with other scientists and engineers in large groups, which transcended space and time.Isaac Newton did not have to personally know Johannes Kepler; Albert Einstein did not have to personally know Albert Michelson and Edward Morley.Every single discovery in science, engineering, and medicine is the result of an individual extending the work of many hundreds or thousands of peers whom they never could have met in person.How did they cooperate?What makes cooperation in a scientific community possible?They had (i) a joint goal, (ii) a mode of large-scale participation in the collaborative effort, and (iii) shared critical standards for choosing which contribution points 'forward.'Focusing on the scientific enterprise, the joint goal was to provide a human-graspable description of observed natural phenomena; the mode of participation was contribution of peer-reviewed papers to scientific journals; and the shared critical standards were Francis Bacon's scientific method.Other large-scale collaborative communities such as engineering, medicine, and mathematics used variations on this theme, with different joint goals and different shared critical standards.Donoho mentioned fish in water, and I was reminded of someone else who spoke of fish being blind to water: Marshall McLuhan, the 20th-century Canadian scholar who defined what we know today as the field of
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 | 0,010 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,022 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,025 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,006 |
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 ».