MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211222676 · doi:10.3917/inso.205.074

L’indice de fragilité numérique : les données comme levier pour comprendre les exclus du numérique

2022· article· fr· W4211222676 on OpenAlex
Emma Ghariani, Johann Pons, Louis Rouget

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformations sociales · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

De nombreux outils ont été développés pour évaluer le niveau de compétences numériques des personnes et limiter les risques d’exclusion, mais aucun d’entre eux ne prend véritablement en compte la dimension territoriale de ce problème. L’indice de fragilité numérique présenté dans cet article répond à cette lacune. Il a été développé par l’Agence nouvelle des solidarités actives (Ansa), en partenariat avec la Mednum et l’Incub-O, incubateur du secrétariat générale aux Affaires régionales (Sgar) de la Préfecture d’Occitanie. Il sert à établir un diagnostic à l’échelle d’un territoire, permettant de concevoir des stratégies d’inclusion numériques fédératrices et efficaces. Cet article présente quelques-unes des nombreuses initiatives développées pour mettre en œuvre et améliorer l’indice de fragilité numérique.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.252 · 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