Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’intéresse aux usages et à la pertinence de la notion d’ignorance dans les recherches contemporaines en alimentation. L’analyse de la littérature nous conduit à distinguer trois mécanismes de production de l’ignorance : 1) l’ignorance comme ressort psychologique individuel face aux situations de dissonance cognitive, avec le « paradoxe de la viande » ; 2) l’ignorance organisée et produite par des acteurs du domaine agro-alimentaire aux États-Unis, en vue de peser sur le débat scientifique et la représentation que se fait le grand public des effets du sucre sur la santé ; 3) l’ignorance comme épistémicide en analysant les processus qui ont présidé et président encore à la disparition de savoirs traditionnels en alimentation détenus par les peuples autochtones du Canada. Dans chacun des cas, nous pointons des actions ou initiatives permettant d’enrayer ces mécanismes de production de l’ignorance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".