MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990511356 · doi:10.7202/1066480ar

Le sexisme en archéologie, ça n’existe pas

2019· article· fr· W2990511356 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Mary, Béline Pasquini, Ségolène Vandevelde

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilosophy and Social Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArchPhilosophySociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les archéologues sont confronté·e·s à de nombreuses questions éthiques dans leur pratique quotidienne ; ces questionnements portent aussi sur leurs pratiques et sur leurs comportements vis-à-vis de leurs pairs. La mise en lumière des discriminations liées au genre, parfois combinées à d’autres éléments tels que l’ethnicité, l’orientation sexuelle, l’origine sociale, les capacités physiques ou les croyances religieuses, apparaît dès lors comme un élément fondamental de la réflexion sur l’éthique professionnelle en archéologie. L’exposition « Archéo-Sexisme » présentée ici, initiative conjointe de l’association Archéo-Éthique et de Paye Ta Truelle, est un exemple d’une telle réflexion.

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)0.009
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.054
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BioethicsSame topicPhilosophy and Social TheoryFrench-language works237,207