MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162932914 · doi:10.7202/1077098ar

Rationalité scientifique, disciplinarité et interdisciplinarité

2021· article· fr· W3162932914 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Simon Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles perspectives en sciences sociales · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article interroge la possibilité d’une interdisciplinarité qui serait pratiquée en dehors du champ scientifique. Pour apporter quelque réponse, il montre comment la philosophie est intrinsèquement associée à la subjectivité, comment la science se détache progressivement de la philosophie, comment cette distanciation favorise la division du savoir, comment la division du savoir appelle l’interdisciplinarité. Cela posé, il présente quelques requêtes d’une interdisciplinarité non scientifique puis montre que ses aspirations sont davantage celles de la philosophie que celles de l’interdisciplinarité.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles perspectives en sciences socialesSame topicInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207