MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069750244 · doi:10.7202/001089ar

La spécificité du champ scientifique et les conditions sociales du progrès de la raison

2002· article· fr· W2069750244 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociologie et sociétés · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En opposition à la sociologie officielle de la science qui ne fait qu'enregistrer l'image triomphante que l'hagiographie scientifique produit et propage, qui constitue la " communauté scientifique " comme un champ social d'exception et qui néglige les phénomènes de domination, l'auteur introduit et élabore la notion de " champ scientifique " qu'il définit à la fois comme le système des relations objectives entre des positions sociales et comme le lieu de la concurrence qui a pour enjeu spécifique le monopole de l'autorité scientifique inséparablement définie comme capacité technique et comme pouvoir social. Il découle de cette définition qu'il est vain de distinguer entre des déterminations proprement scientifiques et des déterminations proprement sociales des pratiques scientifiques : la lutte pour l'autorité scientifique est une lutte irréparablement politique et scientifique dont la spécificité est qu'elle oppose des producteurs qui tendent à n'avoir d'autres clients que leurs concurrents.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.404
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.078 · 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