The French Scientific and Pedagogic Community Alarmed: Review of the International Symposium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On January 7–8, 2022, an event Après la déconstruction. Reconstruire les sciences et la culture (After the Deconstruction. Reconstruction of Sciences and the Culture) organized by the College of Philosophy, the Observatory of decolonialism, and the Committee Laïcité République, took place at the Sorbonne. The colloquium brought together prominent figures from around the world in the heart of Paris, in the historical Salle Louis Liard of Sorbonne University in which PhD theses are defended. Due to the constrictions of the venue — hence the COVID-19 restrictions — apart from 220 delegates to the symposium, more than 400 participants took part via the Internet. Minister of National Education Jean-Michel Blanquer delivered the opening speech. Speakers from France and the best universities of the USA, Canada, and Great Britain took part in three sessions and twelve thematic panels. Researchers, political scientists, sociologists, historians, economists, artists, and representatives of many other professions, mathematicians included, followed the lead of French philosophers present at the conference. The keynote of the symposium was the concern about the increasing politicization of science and education and the need to respond to its threats. The convention regarded the so-called woke ideology, or decolonization thinking, and cancel culture as the main threats to the world, science, and education, since this ideology may result in the cancellation of the very Western civilization. The participants discussed, darkly, pseudo-scientific approaches to the study of Islam, new taboos in mass culture, post-truth in the media, and knowledge transfer in educational training today. It was suggested that every fake or pseudoscientific paper should be countered with a scientific one, academics should back their peers confronted by student activists and university administration, resist deconstruction by transmitting knowledge and language to younger generations. The new axiological turn calls for facing the new ethics not only in everyday encounters but within the scientific discourse as well.
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 | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".