Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de ce texte est de montrer, à l’aide d’une grille analytique développée par Blanc (2009), complétée et appliquée ici au cas de L’Accorderie, comment et de quelle manière ce dispositif de monnaie sociale peut apparaître particulièrement original et novateur et quels sont les facteurs de sa viabilité lui permettant de franchir certaines barrières auxquelles d’autres dispositifs se heurtent. À cette fin, nous comparerons L’Accorderie, un dispositif relativement récent, à trois autres types de dispositifs de monnaies sociales plus anciens, les LETS britanniques, les SEL français et les banques de temps américaines et britanniques. Cette analyse comparative porte sur les choix de fonctionnement et d’organisation de ces trois dispositifs (taille du dispositif, personnes concernées, conditions d’émission, de circulation et de convertibilité de la monnaie, critères de gouvernance).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".