MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ouvrir ou fermer les bouches d’incendie ?

2019· article· fr· W3000211519 on OpenAlexaff
Solène David, Jean‐Pierre Revéret, Agathe Euzen

Bibliographic record

VenueDéveloppement durable et territoires · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhysicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Connues et médiatisées en Île-de-France depuis 2015, les « ouvertures sauvages » désignent une pratique qui consiste à ouvrir de manière spontanée les bouches d’incendie, produisant de hauts geysers d’eau dans l’espace urbain. L’usage éphémère et illicite de cet équipement connecté au réseau d’eau potable et affecté à la défense incendie s’inscrit au cœur d’un phénomène complexe qui révèle, tout autant qu’il provoque, un ensemble de tensions et de perturbations techniques, sociales et territoriales autour de l’objet singulier qu’est la bouche d’incendie.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.270 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDéveloppement durable et territoiresSame topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207