MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118522001 · doi:10.7202/1007081ar

Recherche interdisciplinaire et réflexion sur l’interdisciplinarité

2011· article· fr· W2118522001 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Simon Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles perspectives en sciences sociales · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’interdisciplinarité constitue une pratique scientifique usuelle et féconde. Il y a d’ailleurs de nombreuses théories interdisciplinaires. Mais il n’y a pas de théorie de l’interdisciplinarité. Les études sur l’interdisciplinarité parlent d’une approche appelée à sauver le monde, dichotomisent monodisciplinarité et interdisciplinarité, fabriquent des typologies du travail interdisciplinaire, mais elles ne livrent pas de théories de l’interdisciplinarité. En fait, le projet d’une telle théorie est absurde parce que s’il peut y avoir des théories scientifiques, il ne peut y avoir de théorie de la science. C’est ce que soutient cet article.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.030
Scholarly communication0.0210.029
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.677
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles perspectives en sciences socialesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207