Bibliographic record
Abstract
No espaço de algumas déeadas, profundas mudanças se produziram no tratamento dos perigos suscdíveis de aktar as coktividades humanas. Se, desde o fim do século XIX, assistia-se a uma progressào continua no sentido de tratar tais perigos como riscos, constata-se atualmente um desgaste deste procedimento que, em múltiplos niveis (técnico, científico, econômico, politico), permitia admitir certas formas de controlá-los. Tudo parece élctivamente indicar que o trabalho de domesticação dos perigoscoktin)s, empreendido através da generalização da noção de risco, tenha chegado a seus limites. As razôes desta situação são diversas. E verdade que a própria natureza dos perigos mudou signilicativamente, tornando mais probkmática sua abordagem sob a forma de riscos. Mas a dificuldade de tratar os novos perigos no âmbito da idéia de gestão de riscos kvou ú exploração de outras modalidades de tratamentodestes perigos, especialmente por novos atores que se mobilizam ao redor destas questôes que tendem aser consideradas agora como questôes de sociedade.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".