MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2944422760 · doi:10.4000/books.pum.19477

18. Les Nanodébats

2009· book-chapter· fr· W2944422760 on OpenAlexaff
Mireille Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldChemistry
TopicHistory and advancements in chemistry
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Labour, Employment and Social Solidarity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au printemps 2007, l’Institut du Nouveau Monde (INM) organisait une série de courts débats sur les nanotechnologies, baptisés les « Nanodébats ». Huit groupes d’étudiants, soit près de 300 jeunes inscrits à un cours d’éthique et de philosophie, y ont participé. Les prochaines pages présentent brièvement le contexte, le processus de réalisation ainsi que les principaux résultats de cette troisième série d’activités du programme Jeunes, science et démocratie de l’INM.Contexte et objectifsMalgr...

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.011

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooks→Same topicHistory and advancements in chemistry→French-language works237,207→