Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les sciences sociales entrent résolument – quoique partiellement – dans l’ère computationnelle. Ce constat n’a pas encore de sens précis si on ne l’accompagne d’une analyse discriminante des fonctions épistémiques de la computation dans les différents recours aux ordinateurs pour la modélisation et la simulation en sciences sociales. De par l’introduction de ces nouvelles manières de formaliser (séduisantes car apparaissant comme plus directes et plus ergonomiques), la double question du réalisme des formalismes et de la valeur de preuve des traitements computationnels se pose à nouveaux frais. Cette expansion tous azimuts des simulations computationnelles conduit certains observateurs enthousiastes à penser que l’on a là un nouveau fondement commun pour toutes les sciences sociales. En clarifiant et en distinguant certains des usages épistémiques de différentes simulations computationnelles dans les sciences sociales, cet article montre cependant qu’il vaut mieux s’en tenir à une position médiane et soutenir que l’apport en est principalement méthodologique.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".