MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003193694 · doi:10.3917/rdm.043.0169

Technique et agency

2014· article· fr· W2003193694 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

VenueRevue du MAUSS · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si la citoyenneté implique l’agentivité, qu’est-ce que l’agentivité et comment est-elle possible dans une société technologique avancée dans laquelle une part importante de la vie s’organise autour de systèmes techniques commandés par des experts ? Cet article aborde cette question du point de vue d’une philosophie de la technologie et des travaux constructivistes sur la technologie. En un premier temps, l’article établit les conditions de l’agentivité comme étant le savoir, le pouvoir et des situations propices à son émergence. L’article considère ensuite le role du biais dans la construction de systèmes technologiques ainsi que l’importance de l’intérêt des participants dans la modification de ce biais. Pour terminer, l’article se penche sur la question plus vaste des perspectives de changement civilisationnel que commande la crise environnementale dans un régime technologique globalisant.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.202 · 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