De l’utopie écrite à l’utopie pratiquée. Une réévaluation de la contribution des communautés icariennes de l’Iowa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’évaluation du succès des communautés utopiques est une question importante mais souvent réduite à celle de la longévité. En nous appuyant sur les travaux de Donald E. Pitzer, et à partir de l’accès à des archives inédites, nous proposons dans cet article de réévaluer la contribution des communautés icariennes de l’Iowa (Corning) qui ont fonctionné dans la seconde moitié du XIX e siècle. Cette contribution est analysée à partir de trois dimensions : la flexibilité des règles organisationnelles ; l’innovation en matière d’activité économique ; les trajectoires individuelles revues à partir du débat ouverture/fermeture qui est central dans l’analyse de ces communautés, pouvant être vues comme des alternatives utopiques s’assimilant à terme dans la société américaine.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".