MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1592729985

Temporalité et Internet : réflexion sur la psychologie du temps à la lumière des pratiques domiciliaires

2008· article· fr· W1592729985 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Bonneville

Bibliographic record

VenueCommposite · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesESPACESociologyPhilosophyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La representation de l'avenir au cours de la modernite s'est articulee, du point de vue sociologique, autour d'une conception objective du temps qui trouve son origine au sein des grandes structures economiques. Avec la venue des nouvelles technologies d'information et de communication (NTIC), l'espace et le temps ont pris des significations differentes grâce a la possibilite de communiquer sans reference a l'espace et dans un temps qualitativement different de celui du « temps de communication » moderne. Dans une enquete de nature qualitative sur les representations de la temporalite des utilisateurs quotidiens du reseau Internet a domicile, nous avons observe une reconstitution d'un « temps vecu » qui vient supplanter le temps objectif propre a la modernite. Ce temps vecu se caracterise par des distorsions au niveau de la representation du passe et de l'avenir et par la preponderance de la representation du present comme « moment d'execution ». Quelles sont les caracteristiques d'une telle representation sur le plan psychologique ? C'est precisement dans le cadre de cette interrogation que nous reflechirons, dans ce texte, sur ce que nous pensons etre la toute « nouvelle orientation temporelle » des utilisateurs quotidiens du reseau Internet a domicile.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.022
Scholarly communication0.0110.017
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommpositeSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207