Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les premiers spécialistes, tant en sciences humaines qu’en physique et en chimie, se sont vite rendus à l’idée selon laquelle chacun pourrait avoir sa définition des nanotechnologies. Ils s’inscrivent ainsi dans ce que nous considérons comme une culture des « faits alternatifs » plutôt répandue dans les sciences contemporaines. Ce texte est une note critique autour de la difficulté à définir précisément ce qu’il faut entendre par nanosciences et nanotechnologies. Dans la première partie, nous faisons ressortir la multiplication des définitions, liée aux luttes économiques, aux enjeux stratégiques et aux intérêts hétérogènes des acteurs. Puis, nous cherchons à dépasser ce relativisme en nous focalisant sur les outils qui permettent l’accès à l’échelle nanométrique et sur les changements de propriétés inhérents à l’échelle quantique.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".