Introduction. Comparer les pratiques délibératives à travers les époques : une aberration historique ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cette introduction vise à interroger d’un point de vue méthodologique et épistémologique la pertinence d’une comparaison des pratiques délibératives à travers le temps et l’espace. À partir d’une discussion des différentes approches du comparatisme historique, nous défendons les vertus d’un comparatisme dérangeant, celui de « comparer l’incomparable » (Detienne), d’un « anachronisme contrôlé » (Loraux) permettant d’interroger les expériences du passé sous un nouveau jour à partir de questions contemporaines, mais aussi de mieux comprendre les dynamiques présentes à l’aune de leur historicité. Nous revenons ensuite sur certains apports du numéro quant à la compréhension de la participation citoyenne aux négociations, aux débats publics, aux processus d’expertise et de décision, à partir de quatre questionnements transversaux aux articles : sur les raisons de la participation, ses acteurs, ses formes et ses effets.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".