Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article a pour objet les valeurs ayant cours aujourd’hui dans le monde de la science européenne, dégagées à partir d’entretiens semi-directifs avec des lauréats d’un grand prix de médecine et de biologie. Centrée sur la question, particulièrement révélatrice, des prix scientifiques et de leurs effets sur la vie professionnelle, relationnelle ou privée, cette enquête visait la socialisation de la vie scientifique, dans la perspective d’une sociologie compréhensive et empirique des valeurs. L’analyse inductive du corpus nous a permis de distinguer deux grands couples d’oppositions : d’une part, entre « valeurs fondamentales » et « valeurs contextuelles » et, d’autre part, entre « valeurs publiques » (susceptibles d’être publiquement revendiquées, en tant que valeurs de références) et « valeurs privées » (qui orientent effectivement l’action mais d’une façon difficilement revendicable en public). L’article présente un répertoire des valeurs contextuelles, sous la forme d’une quinzaine de couples de qualificatifs opposés (du type individuel/collectif), dont le statut axiologique varie selon les contextes.
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 | 0.026 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".