L’expérience française de l’évaluation technologique interactive des recherches sur les vignes transgéniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, les auteurs présentent une réflexion sur les jugements de légitimité de l’organisation de la démocratie participative en relatant l’expérience originale qu’ils ont conduite en 2001 et 2002 en France, dans le domaine de la recherche agronomique. Mise sur pied par l’un des trois grands organismes publics de recherche nationaux (l’INRA) qui souhaitait ouvrir la délibération sur sa recherche à des acteurs extérieurs, cette expérience pilote de coconstruction d’un programme de recherche sur les vignes transgéniques permet d’interroger non seulement les conditions de la production, par un groupe hybride (chercheurs, professionnels de la vigne et du vin et citoyens ordinaires), d’un avis argumenté sur des questions technoscientifiques, mais aussi les modalités de sa réception dans l’espace public et dans les milieux concernés : en l’occurrence, le monde agricole et plus particulièrement vitivinicole, ainsi que le monde associatif de la lutte anti-OGM.
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 | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".