MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311500940 · doi:10.58079/oubi

"too big to fail" et mesures de risque

2009· article· fr· W2311500940 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arthur Charpentier

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenEdition (OpenEdition) · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAXA Research Fund
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyEthnologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Je suis tombe ce matin sur un billet sur too big to fail sur le blog de rationalite limitee (ici, et plus recemment la). On retrouve cette idee sur le blog de Paul Krugman (ici) ou sur ce qui s’est passe pour AIG, l’assureur americain, ici ou dans des journaux francais, ici avec une interview de Jean-Herve Lorenzi. Bref, c’est un sujet incroyablement a la mode... et il n’y a pas besoin d’une grande culture historique pour savoir qu’il n’existe aucune entreprise ou civilisation qui soit too...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpenEdition (OpenEdition)Same topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207