MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199080603 · doi:10.4000/ceroart.8103

Critique d’un outil méthodologique à travers l’étude d’un objet métis

2020· article· fr· W3199080603 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCeROArt · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La notion de valeur culturelle est prégnante dans le champ de la conservation-restauration. D’après les codes de déontologie, le professionnel doit veiller au respect de ces valeurs. Ainsi, pour évaluer un bien culturel, plusieurs modèles théoriques ont été élaborés ou adaptés pour la discipline. Mais correspondent-ils aux soins que nécessite un objet dit ethnographique ? Cette recherche tente d’appréhender la notion de valeurs culturelles et de poser un regard critique sur un outil méthodologique utilisé dans le domaine patrimonial - la typologie de valeurs - en vue de proposer un protocole d’intervention pour un objet métis (Un tiputa tahitien conservé au Musée du Quai Branly – Jacques Chirac).

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.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.131 · 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