Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article interroge la relation de voisinage à partir de l’analyse de la figure du voisin dans la culture populaire (dictons, littérature, bande dessinée…) : figure péjorative, elle est globalement contredite par les discours, beaucoup plus positifs, recueillis lors d’entretiens semi-directifs sur le rapport spatial et social à l’environnement de l’individu. Il en ressort que la relation de voisinage, en plus de la spatialité, a deux dimensions majeures : la temporalité et la potentialité. Le voisin, parce qu’il demeure à proximité, est potentiellement nuisible ou utile. Par cette simple potentialité, la relation de voisinage fait que l’individu n’est pas exactement ce qu’il est, il est aussi le résultat de la proximité du voisin et de la relation de voisinage en tant que triplet spatialité/temporalité/potentialité. L’article vise ainsi à proposer une définition du concept de relation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".