MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335795865 · doi:10.4000/insitu.3846

Good Morning Babilonia … le patrimoine « immatériel » des universités est-il un acte manqué ? Brèves réflexions sur le cas de l’Université libre de Bruxelles

2011· article· fr· W2335795865 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIn Situ · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsBibliothèque et Archives nationales du QuébecLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La situation institutionnelle de l’Université libre de Bruxelles, comme de la plupart des Universités belges, suppose la possession en propre d’un patrimoine et une autonomie de gestion complète en la matière. Cette situation appelle indubitablement de nombreuses questions. Il s’agit notamment de s’interroger sur la conscience de l’existence de ce patrimoine chez les membres de la communauté, sur son existence – ou non - comme élément de construction de l’identité collective de l’Université et sur une valorisation ad hoc, tant vis-à-vis des membres de la communauté universitaire qu’à l’extérieur de celle-ci. Par-delà le contexte institutionnel, légal et réglementaire, on évoquera ici quelques étapes de l’histoire des unités patrimoniales (Archives, musées, Réserve précieuse …) et on s’interrogera sur les intentions qui président à la constitution d’un patrimoine raisonné.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.164 · 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