Les institutions de consultation en science et technologie : le cas des matériaux industriels de pointe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur les changements survenus au sein des institutions de consultation en science et technologie. La structure, la fonction et le membership des comités dans le domaine des matériaux industriels de pointe sont étudiés. Trois types d'acteurs sont fortement représentés dans les comités : les dirigeants des entreprises, qui occupent une place de plus en plus importante, les universitaires et les gestionnaires des organismes publics. Trois autres en sont presque totalement absents : le gouvernement provincial, les chercheurs des laboratoires publics et les associations industrielles. Les membres des comités sont représentatifs de la clientèle des programmes, même s'ils n'en sont pas tous pour autant les principaux bénéficiaires. Les gestionnaires des organismes publics de recherche tentent d'obtenir la participation de l'industrie pour légitimer leurs activités et accroître leur clientèle.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".