Bibliographic record
Abstract
Omniprésents dans le paysage urbain, les jardins collectifs le sont aussi dans le quotidien de la majeure partie des Russes. Ils représentent le pendant incontournable de l’habitat collectif. Leur histoire est intimement liée à toutes les crises économiques et agricoles qu’ont pu connaître l’Union Soviétique puis la Russie postsoviétique. Objet multifonctionnel, les jardins collectifs se révèlent être de précieux observatoires pour évaluer les transformations économiques et sociales de la société russe. La datcha et le plaisir pris à y séjourner entrent dans le cadre d’une recherche de mieux vivre associant activité physique, alimentation saine, rencontres familiales et amicales. Présentés comme un complément nourricier indispensable pour les Russes, ces jardins assument aussi d’autres fonctions comme l’exercice de l’ingéniosité, le plaisir du travail de la terre et la rupture avec le quotidien.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".