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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au Quebec, la controverse sur les coupes forestieres ne se pacifie pas malgre les modifications apportees a la loi et aux pratiques depuis une vingtaine d’annees. Cette controverse est pour l’auteure l’occasion d’une interrogation sur la place de l’homme contemporain dans la nature d’aujourd’hui. Les paradigmes scientifiques et l’ethique des acteurs sont analyses tandis que la foret imaginaire et ses symboles sont decortiques. Ils eclairent de maniere inusitee les parties les plus cryptees de la controverse. Ce livre interessera les personnes qui souhaitent mieux comprendre la controverse sur la foret boreale du Quebec. Il parlera aussi a celles qui veulent comprendre et pratiquer la pensee complexe. Les eco-conseillers y trouveront un cadre de reference pour se situer dans des situations de controverses sociales a propos de la nature. Il permettra aux praticiens chercheurs de comprendre le cheminement et de voir le resultat d’une recherche praxeologique. Enfin, il est une contribution a la theologie pratique contemporaine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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 it