MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1749409254 · doi:10.4000/conflits.17959

La biopolitique et le dressage des populations

2010· article· fr· W1749409254 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCultures & conflits/Cultures et conflits · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre de réadaptation Lethbridge-Layton-Mackay
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les travaux de Michel Foucault sur les relations de pouvoir modernes mettent en évidence deux modèles principaux. D’une part, une technologie de pouvoir « disciplinaire », qui consiste en une prise en charge exhaustive de l’individu, d’autre part, une technologie de pouvoir « biopolitique », qui correspond à la raison d’Etat moderne et libérale, et à la gestion souple des phénomènes de masses associés à la population. Cependant, une analyse plus détaillée de la biopolitique et de ses origines met en évidence les racines disciplinaires du paradigme gouvernemental libéral, et permet de situer dans un contexte différent les injonctions à la liberté qui semblent la caractériser. Dès lors, la modernité politique ne serait plus composée d’un équilibre entre des techniques de coercition et une idéologie du laisser-faire, mais comme un ensemble de techniques qui vont moduler de façon différente une même exigence de coercition des corps dociles.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.289 · 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