Histoire des sciences et histoire de l’édition : de quelle manière peuvent-elles se compléter ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article introductif du numéro de la revue Philosophia Scientiæ met en perspective le dialogue entre l’histoire du livre et de l’édition et l’histoire des sciences et des techniques. Malgré leurs intérêts communs, en dehors des quelques études, ces deux champs demeurent largement disjoints. Nous mettons en perspective la tension entre ces deux champs afin d’inviter à enrichir le dialogue pluridisciplinaire. L’histoire du livre et de l’édition, d’une part, et l’histoire des sciences et des techniques, d’autre part, se sont déjà intéressées, séparément, à certains aspects matériels – qu’ils soient techniques ou financiers – liés à la confection des imprimés (scientifiques). Cependant, comme le montre cette réunion d’articles rédigés par des spécialistes de divers champs disciplinaires et professionnels, d’autres approches, méthodes, sujets émergent pour appréhender l’élaboration des sciences.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".