MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613598911 · doi:10.4000/ress.3814

Why Communication?

2017· article· fr· W2613598911 on OpenAlex
Domenico Tosini

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

VenueRevue européenne des sciences sociales · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmile Durkheim and Sociology
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article examine les fondements de la théorie luhmannienne des systèmes sociaux. On s’attachera d’abord à éclaircir la raison de l’intérêt de la théorie sociologique pour la théorie générale des systèmes. Elle consiste dans le fait que cette théorie permet de concevoir les systèmes sociaux comme étant des entités distinctes de leur environnement et interréliées par des processus de communication. On se penchera ensuite sur la différenciation interne des systèmes sociaux en soulignant les propriétés fonctionnelles responsables de l’émergence d’une pluralité de sous-systèmes autonomes, tels les systèmes légal, politique et économique modernes. Enfin, on donnera une vue d’ensemble de l’enquête sur les principaux mécanismes en jeu dans l’évolution sociale. Dans une perspective néo-évolutionniste, la théorie des systèmes sociaux permet de rendre compte des processus de variation, sélection et stabilisation des sous-systèmes de la société moderne ainsi que des dispositifs spécifiques, dits couplages structurels, qui les coordonnent de manière réciproque.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0240.093
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.337
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.081 · 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