Penser le plagiat à la lumière du cadre normatif du régime contemporain des savoirs scientifiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La notion de plagiat est très loin d’être neutre. L’importance qui lui est accordée par la déontologie universitaire et scientifique indique que le plagiat touche un point très sensible du régime actuel des savoirs scientifiques. Selon l’interprétation proposée ici, ce régime est en tension entre l’ethos de la science moderne, avec son idéal de « communisme », et l’avènement de l’économie de la connaissance. Cette dernière conduit les scientifiques à oublier la dimension contributive de leur travail, à assimiler le fait d’être auteur et la propriété intellectuelle et à s’indigner du plagiat plutôt qu’à se battre pour l’idée que les savoirs scientifiques sont des biens communs. Le libre accès permet, oui, de lutter techniquement contre le plagiat. Mais la science ouverte engagée et l’utilisation des licences Creative Commons permettent de repenser son statut au sein de l’ethos scientifique et de revaloriser la dimension commune du travail scientifique.
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".