Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il n’y a pas de biens communs en soi, mais des « systèmes de ressources » (Elinor Ostrom) dont la gestion commune entre pairs, en vue de bénéfices conjoints, s’avère plus souhaitable à leurs yeux que la gestion par des droits de propriété privé, parfois impossible, ou la gestion par une autorité centrale, toujours possible.On peut ainsi rapporter la gestion de biens communs à la problématique originelle de l’agir communicationnel qui, pour Jürgen Habermas pose les conditions a priori d’une action collective entre pairs. Soit précisément les conditions préalables à la mise en œuvre de processus d’auto-organisation et d’autogouvernance. Processus qui distinguent, pour Ostrom, la gestion de biens communs des représentations économiques dominantes pour lesquelles l’action collective n’est qu’une interaction (le cas du marché) ou dépend d’une autorité centrale (celle de l’entrepreneur ou de l’État).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
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".