MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126498143 · doi:10.1177/097172180400900104

Scientific Research in Algeria Institutionalisation versus Professionalisation

2004· article· en· W2126498143 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Technology and Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation Models
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionalisationIndependence (probability theory)AutonomyPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceState (computer science)Control (management)Public administrationSociologySocial scienceLawManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the first twenty years after independence, scientific research in Algeria was largely displaced in favour of teaching and training. From the beginning, there arose a conflict between scientific research and political independence that was tied to the tensions generated by two sets of forces: professionalisation autonomy on the one hand, and institutionalisation control on the other. The process of professionalisation leads to greater independence for researchers, which comes into conflict with the exercise of government control over the process of institutionalisation. It drifted down to an incessant political and administrative impediment to the aspirations of scientific researchers for professional autonomy. This situation influenced the conditions under which the scientific community emerges and consolidates itself in its relationship with the state in Algeria. The relationship between the scientific and political worlds comprises the nolitical backdrop of the problems that this paper will attempt to unfold.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.238 · 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