Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le débat sur la contribution de l’Internet à la démocratie est loin d’être réglé. Certains évoquent la possibilité que l’Internet puisse restaurer la sphère publique en mentionnant le fait que les discussions en ligne favoriseraient l’empowerment. D’autres affirment que l’Internet est juste un centre commercial virtuel, l’extension finale du capitalisme global à toutes les activités de nos vies quotidiennes. Cette position plaide pour la thèse favorable à la démocratie moyennant l’intégration de quelques réserves. La contribution la plus importante de l’Internet à la démocratie ne repose pas nécessairement sur ses effets sur le processus électoral, mais plutôt sur sa capacité à rassembler une population autour de réseaux techniques qui regroupent des individus dispersés sur de vastes zones géographiques. Les patients, les joueurs de jeux vidéo, les musiciens et bien d’autres publics ont émergé sur Internet avec des conséquences surprenantes.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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.
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".