L’histoire de la forme revue au prisme de l’histoire de la « grande conversation scientifique »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous publions ici la transcription d’un entretien avec Jean-Claude Guédon réalisé à Montréal le 8 mai 2017. L’entretien est structuré en deux temps. Il commence par un monologue grâce auquel Jean-Claude Guédon retrace, en quatre étapes, l’histoire de l’évolution des revues scientifiques. Vient ensuite un échange de questions-réponses qui portent sur différents enjeux comme l’open access, le rapport au politique ou encore le défi de la patrimonialisation des formes supports des publications scientifiques. Nous avons gardé volontairement la trace de l’oralité de l’échange. Nous tenons à remercier très chaleureusement Jean-Claude Guédon pour sa disponibilité et pour le long temps d’entretien qu’il nous a consacré.
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".