Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plus ou moins rapide et abouti selon les diffrentes sciences, ce processus marquerait la mise l'cart, sinon la disparition, de cet idal encyclopdique dsormais raval au rang d'un archasme symbolisant un sicle des Lumires de plus en plus mis distance : dans le domaine des sciences, l'invention du XIX e sicle semble galement se construire par une mise distance critique du XVIII e sicle et d'un encyclopdisme qui lui serait associ 8 . Pensons ainsi, pour illustrer ce propos, aux critiques bien connues portes par Georges Cuvier contre le naturaliste Buffon ou la stigmatisation dont sont victimes, dans les annes 1800-1810, certaines figures scientifiques ou mdicales se rclamant de l'hritage du XVIII e sicle 9 . Le succs rencontr par les priodiques destins un public de savants et de curieux durant la seconde moiti du XVIII e sicle renverrait ainsi un rgime ou une conception particulire d'organisation, de construction voire de diffusion des savoirs qui tendrait progressivement s'effacer Spcialisation vs encyclopdisme ? La Rvolution franaise, 2 | 2012
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 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".