MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2886664318 · doi:10.71781/21687

Regard alternatif sur une économie alternative : connaissances économiques d’entrepreneur-e-s québécois-e-s en coopératives de travail

2017· dissertation· fr· W2886664318 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louis Rivet-Préfontaine

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2017
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La thématique générale de ce mémoire est l’enjeu de la constitution d’économies alternatives au capitalisme par le biais d’initiatives associées à l’économie sociale, et plus précisément par le modèle de la coopérative de travail. Y est d’abord présentée une critique de prémisses théoriques fondant communément les études réalisées au sujet du « monde » de l’économie sociale, suivie de la présentation et de la mobilisation d’une approche de sociologie de la connaissance de l’économie comme voie alternative d’étude de cet objet. En analysant le discours d’entrepreneur-e-s de coopératives de travail du Québec, interviewé-e-s au sujet de leurs expériences économiques, il est possible d’y repérer l’articulation de différentes formes sociales de connaissance avec celles se rapportant à la forme dominante de conception de l’économie. Ce seront alors ces modalités variées d’articulation des connaissances qui sont considérées comme déterminantes de la capacité à concevoir un projet socioéconomique alternatif.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.020
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueOpen MIND→Same topicSocial Sciences and Governance→French-language works237,207→