Bibliographic record
Abstract
La compétition entre Rutherford et les Curie, puis la participation des Français au projet nucléaire anglo-canadien sont connues. Mais y a-t-il eu des relations, voire même de simples contacts, avant 1950 ? Qu’en disent l’historiographie, essentiellement canadienne, les archives françaises et les enquêtes-mémoire ? Sont examinés les cas d’un ingénieur (Marcel Pochon, ancien de l’EPCI, chimiste d’Eldorado Gold Mines) et de deux chercheurs (l’histologiste Charles-Philippe Leblond, de l’université McGill, et le physicien Pierre Demers, de l’université de Montréal, anciens collaborateurs de Frédéric Joliot) et celui des Instituts du radium de Paris et de Montréal. Le rapprochement des sources et des disciplines, facilité par la mise à disposition de nouveaux fonds (Claudius Regaud) et d’outils de recherche (archives de l'Institut du radium et Joliot-Curie), laisse entrevoir la richesse d’une approche multicentrique et croisée. En particulier, il confirme la spécificité de l’école Curie, qui allie recherche et applications industrielles et médicales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.002 |
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.
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".