Sortir l’histoire des sciences et des techniques de leur contexte national : limites et défis du comparatisme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si les historiens des sciences et des techniques au Canada recourent fréquemment à la démarche comparative, cette production historiographique gagnerait à ne pas se contenter de juxtaposer et de soumettre à un questionnaire commun des expériences nationales comme elle le fait très souvent. Après avoir présenté les avantages et les désavantages de la démarche comparative, l’auteur expose ici deux propositions méthodologiques inspirées de l’histoire environnementale pour ancrer la démarche comparative en histoire des sciences et des techniques dans une approche critique de la notion de nation. Pour cesser de conférer à la nation un point de vue privilégié dans l’analyse historique, l’histoire comparée devra situer la nation dans un enchevêtrement d’échelles ou en démontrer le caractère construit.
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 | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".