Éthique et patrimoine scientifique : Regards sur l’évolution des musées de sciences et technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine les changements qu’ont connus les musées de sciences et de technologies (MST) et tente de cerner leur évolution future à partir des tendances que l’on peut observer aujourd’hui. Les changements qu’ont connus les MST sont en bonne partie portés par des transformations politiques et sociales qui commandent à la fois de nouvelles manières de définir, de construire et de préserver le patrimoine scientifique, et de nouvelles manières de communiquer ce patrimoine. Ces transformations sociales et politiques qui exercent une influence certaine sur les institutions culturelles renvoient plus fondamentalement à des enjeux d’éthique publique et notamment à des questions d’accessibilité des sciences et du patrimoine scientifique. En portant un regard critique sur les MST en Europe et en Amérique du Nord, cet article définit cinq phases historiques de développement des musées qui correspondent avec cinq perspectives sur l’accessibilité des sciences. Ces différentes phases illustrent par ailleurs la grande diversité des enjeux normatifs qui traversent les institutions du patrimoine scientifique et technique.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".