MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217434086 · doi:10.35562/balisages.612

Les plateformes d’écriture et de publication ou la dilatation contrôlée de territoires numériques

2021· article· fr· W3217434086 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Parmentier

Bibliographic record

VenueBalisages · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsBibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les plateformes d’écriture et de publication, loin d’être uniquement des entreprises de l’e-commerce, s’avèrent être de riches territoires numériques accueillant, sous couvert d'une démarche participative, tous types d’auteurs et de lecteurs où chacun a la possibilité de s’exprimer, d’écrire et d’éditer son manuscrit en toute autonomie. Alimentées par des textes qui arrivent en flux constant, les plateformes sont des territoires qui ne cessent de se dilater et d’accroître leur reconnaissance auprès d’un large public. Pourtant, bien que ces terres d’accueil aient un aménagement où rien n’est laissé au hasard, elles ne sont pas exemptes de défauts du fait d’un apparent manque de surveillance interne qui les rend vulnérables. En nous fondant sur une étude universitaire menée sur la plateforme d’auto-édition Kindle Direct Publishing, nous montrerons dans cet article qu’Amazon, loin de se cantonner à la fonction de site marchand, a notamment intégré dans son espace numérique un territoire numérique où circulent quantité de textes inédits appréciés par les lecteurs attirés par une littérature de divertissement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.021

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.200 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBalisagesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207