Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'auteur critique d'abord la perspective qui a prévalu jusqu'à aujourd'hui chez les sociologues Américains des sciences et plus particulièrement chez R. K. Merton et ses étudiants qui est de considérer les sciences comme un vaste sous-système social autonome : un certain nombre d'évidences empiriques (correspondance entre valeurs et normes de la science et valeurs politiques, base " particulariste " du système de récompenses, rôles politico-scientifiques des scientifiques des pays développés, politisation et syndicalisation des scientifiques, etc) montrent en effet que la prétention à l'autonomie est par trop inappropriée et ne peut se justifier à la lumière de ce que nous connaissons aujourd'hui. Il n'est donc pas possible au sociologue des sciences, principalement lorsqu'il étudie la science aux États-Unis ou dans d'autres pays occidentaux, d'ignorer l'influence des facteurs sociaux extrinsèques : son objectif premier est d'explorer les fonctions sociales comparables et changeantes de la science et de l'homme de science.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".