MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488883484 · doi:10.7202/800624ar

Un mécanisme de prospective technologique en prospective

2009· article· en· W1488883484 on OpenAlex
Roger D. Voyer

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueL Actualité économique · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnological changeTechnology developmentTechnology assessmentMechanism (biology)Political sciencePoliticsBusinessEconomicsEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth of consumer and environmentalist movements in recent years has shown that technological innovation is not always beneficial. Growing public pressure for better assessments of the consequences of technological projects has lead to the development of the concept of "Technology Assessment" which has been defined as "taking a purposeful look at the consequences of technological change". The concept of "Technology Assessment" originated in the U.S.A. in the early 1960's. In 1972 the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was formed as an aid to Congress. However since the Canadian political system differs significantly from that in the U.S.A. a different mechanism for Technology Assessment is needed in Canada. The present paper describes such a mechanism.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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