MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951959863 · doi:10.4000/rhsh.3383

Sophie Richardot et Sabine Rozier (dir.), Les savoirs des sciences humaines et sociales en débat. Controverses et polémiques

2019· article· fr· W2951959863 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Gingras

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d Histoire des Sciences Humaines · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les directrices de publication de cet ouvrage collectif ont raison de constater dans leur introduction que les travaux consacrés aux controverses en sciences sociales et humaines sont rares. Les contributions qu’elles ont réunies dans ce volume visent, disent-elles, à « poser à nouveaux frais la question des conditions de recevabilité des sciences humaines et sociales » (p. 11). L’ouvrage est composé de sept études de cas qu’elles regroupent dans leur introduction sous trois questions : 1) «...

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.199 · 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.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d Histoire des Sciences HumainesSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207