Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'auteur pose le problème général de l'émergence et du développement des nouvelles technologies : malgré le progrès indéniable qu'elles amènent, certains effets négatifs doivent aussi être pris en considération si on veut en situer les possibilités et les limites. Il remet en question la conception prédominante de l'efficacité, d'où il découle des catégories de gens qui réussissent alors que d'autres sont rejetées par le système parce qu'elles ne répondent pas aux nouveaux critères d'efficacité. Bref, l'émergence des nouvelles technologies demande un véritable débat quant à leurs impacts sociaux. On peut ici penser à des dimensions comme la confidentialité, le contrôle possible par l'accès aux informations, ou les conséquences sur le monde du travail. Il faut aussi prévoir que ces changements auront une influence plus marquante sur les populations que desservent les travailleurs sociaux.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".