Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour rapprocher science politique et STS, Bruno Latour a proposé, dans une série d’articles publiés au milieu des années 2000, une conceptualisation du politique comme trajectoire des controverses technoscientifiques. Le politologue Pierre Favre a critiqué cette approche. Notre article prend la position inverse et montre pourquoi la conceptualisation proposée par Latour est parfaitement acceptable pour la science politique parce qu’elle s’enracine dans le pragmatisme, qui a lui-même fortement influencé l’analyse des politiques publiques. Notre thèse est qu’en se rapprochant de la science politique, Latour s’éloigne malheureusement de sa fameuse théorie « science is politics by other means » . Il se prive ainsi de la capacité à analyser ce qui rend la science politiquement unique. Le cas des exoplanètes discuté par Latour et Favre est utilisé pour appuyer notre propos.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".