MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137682035 · doi:10.7202/021977ar

La géographie évolue. Elle est utile. Mais les géographes le sont peut-être moins…

2005· article· fr· W2137682035 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Adrien Bérubé

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de géographie du Québec · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Geography and Geographical Thought
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Un autre colloque épistémologique. Signe de santé ou symptôme de pathologie ? La géographie a changé, certes. Parce que les temps changent. Parce que les géographes ont voulu se rendre plus utiles. Mais la lecture de certains périodiques laisse perplexe. La géographie, est-ce bien ce que font les géographes? La géographie universitaire ne serait-elle pas plus utile si elle était d'abord plus utilisable? Par qui donc les géographes veulent-ils être admirés? Par quelques spécialistes ou par le grand public?

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.031
Scholarly communication0.0140.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de géographie du QuébecSame topicHistorical Geography and Geographical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207