Les faits ne parlent pas d’eux-mêmes : thèses et théories dans l’analyse de la commission Gomery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour l’auteur, l’une des questions les plus intéressantes à se poser à propos de la commission Gomery n’est pas de savoir si l’on se range dans le camp des « pour » ou des « contre », mais plutôt de poser la question du « comment » : comment la commission Gomery est-elle arrivée à faire les constatations présentées dans son premier rapport ? À quels théorie, concept ou cadre normatif le juge Gomery a-t-il eu recours pour interpréter et donner un sens aux nombreux faits que la commission a recueillis au cours de ses audiences ? D’autres interprétations sont-elles possibles ? C’est à ces questions, et à d’autres, portant sur les rapports complexes entre le monde politique et celui de la fonction publique que s’attarde le présent 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".