MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777303579 · doi:10.4000/memini.970

Désir, frustration, désespoir : les objets peuvent-ils tenir leurs promesses ?

2017· article· fr· W2777303579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Colette Van Coolput-Storms

Bibliographic record

VenueMemini · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrustrationHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. IntroductionDepuis quelques décennies les objets ont le vent en poupe. La culture matérielle en général a été réévaluée récemment. Philippe Cordez a mis en valeur l’intérêt nouveau développé par les historiens de l’art pour les artefacts. Les objets en trois dimensions, manipulables et transportables, ont intégré en force le champ de recherche de plusieurs disciplines, dont la sociologie. Depuis l’article fondateur d’Arjun Appadurai, les sociologues parlent de « la vie sociale des objets ...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.145 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeminiSame topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207