MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231745346 · doi:10.3917/rsi.121.0072

Dérives et effets pervers de l’évaluation quantitative de la recherche : sur les mauvais usages de la bibliométrie

2015· article· fr· W4231745346 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Gingras

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherche en soins infirmiers · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’évaluation quantitative de la recherche scientifique se fonde de plus en plus sur des indicateurs bibliométriques de publications et de citations. Nous présentons ici les problèmes soulevés par l’usage simpliste de ces méthodes et rappelons les dangers d’utiliser des indicateurs et des classements mal construits et techniquement défectueux qui ne mesurent pas les dimensions qu’ils sont supposés mesurer, par exemple la « qualité » d’une publication ou d’une institution. Nous montrons que les revues francophones sont particulièrement susceptibles de souffrir des mauvais usages des classements bibliométriques trop simplistes des revues scientifiques.

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 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)0.456
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.632
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4560.632
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0570.203
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.950
GPT teacher head0.705
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherche en soins infirmiersSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207