MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112427207 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.5423

Éthique et anonymat : le cas des revues de sciences sociales françaises

2020· article· fr· W3112427207 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michel Messu

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmile Durkheim and Sociology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’anonymisation des articles soumis aux revues scientifiques est-elle un gage éthique ? Telle est la question examinée par l’article. On y soutiendra que, pour les revues de sciences sociales, loin de favoriser une éthique en termes d’équité de traitement et de gain scientifique, la procédure du « double aveugle » érige la subjectivité du reviewer en norme anonyme et réduit le débat d’idées. C’est que les règles en vigueur dans les sciences expérimentales ne s’appliquent pas aux sciences sociales.

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)0.217
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.446
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2170.446
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0160.057
Scholarly communication0.0310.031
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0110.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicEmile Durkheim and SociologyFrench-language works237,207