MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084806150 · doi:10.1016/j.crci.2005.09.004

Alchimies futures : compte rendu de l'expérience ESYOP

2005· article· fr· W2084806150 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Compain, Valérie Desvergnes, Cyril Ollivier, Frédéric Robert, Franck Suzenet, Mihai Barboiu, Philippe Belmont, Yves Blériot, Frédéric Bolze, Sandrine Bouquillon, Erika Bourguet, Benoı̂t Braı̈da, Thierry Constantieux, Laurent Désaubry, Delphine Dupont, Stéphane Gastaldi, François Jérôme, Stéphanie Legoupy, Xavier Marat, Marie E. Migaud, Nicolas Moitessier, Sébastien Papot, Francesco Peri, Marc Petit, Sandrine Py, Emmanuelle Schulz, Isabelle Tranoy‐Opalinski, Boris Vauzeilles, Philippe Vayron, Laurent Vergnes, Sébastien Vidal, Serge Wilmouth

Bibliographic record

VenueComptes Rendus Chimie · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldChemistry
TopicHistory and advancements in chemistry
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyAlchemyChemistryTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

« Quelle chimie organique demain ? » Cet article présente les conclusions de la première édition des entretiens de synthèse organique et de prospective (ESYOP), dont l'objectif était d'apporter une réponse collective à cette question fondamentale. Les défis mis en évidence par une trentaine de jeunes chercheurs francophones de la génération 30–39 ans peuvent se regrouper suivant trois thèmes interdépendants : la conquête du simple, la nature comme guide et la conception d'édifices moléculaires capables d'autonomie et d'adaptabilité. Le visage de la chimie organique de demain sera peut-être celui d'une science cherchant à construire avec une grande économie de moyens des systèmes moléculaires inspirés de la nature et dotés d'une forme d'intelligence. .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComptes Rendus ChimieSame topicHistory and advancements in chemistryFrench-language works237,207