MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346856319 · doi:10.58079/ouax

"Générer" du hasard, partie 1

2009· article· fr· W2346856319 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arthur Charpentier

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenEdition (OpenEdition) · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAXA Research Fund
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bon l’idée de récurrence les dernières fois (ici et là) n’était pas forcément mauvaise, mais telle qu’elle était présentée, ça ne marchait pas très bien... Une autre méthode peut être celle proposée par John von Neumann, parfois appelée middle square. On prend un nombre à 4 chiffres, on l’élève au carré, et on prend les 4 chiffres du "milieu". Par exemple à partir de 1234, dont le carré est 1522756, puis on prend le carré de 2275, c’est à dire 5175625... etc. On prend alors comme nombre cett...

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.014
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.013

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.266 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 topicPolitical and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207