Quelle transparence pour les algorithmes d’apprentissage machine ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the concept of "transparency of algorithms" has become of primary importance in the public and scientific debates. In the light of the proliferation of uses of the term "transparency", we distinguish two families of fundamental uses of the concept: a descriptive family relating to intrinsic epistemic properties of programs, the first of which are intelligibility and explicability, and a prescriptive family that concerns the normative properties of their uses, the first of which are loyalty and fairness. Because one needs to understand an algorithm in order to explain it and carry out its audit, intelligibility is logically first in the philosophical study of transparency. In order to better determine the challenges of intelligibility in the public use of algorithms, we introduce a distinction between the intelligibility of the procedure and the intelligibility of outputs. Finally, we apply this distinction to the case of machine learning.
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 | 0.019 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".