MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241894905 · doi:10.4000/communication.7025

Jean ALBRESPIT, Noémie FRANÇOIS et Dolores THION SORIANO-MOLLA (dir.) (2016), Fabriques de vérité(s). 1. Communication et imaginaires

2017· article· fr· W4241894905 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aurélie Blot

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Divisé en quatre grands chapitres, l’ouvrage collectif aborde les stratégies et les outils de la reproduction et de la représentation du faire vrai. Le concept de vérité ainsi que les rapports entre vérité, certitude, réel, vraisemblance et vérisimilitude sont interrogés au cœur de thématiques diverses telles que l’art contemporain, la photographie, l’adaptation filmique, mais aussi le discours et l’argumentation. La force et l’intérêt de cet ouvrage sur les fabriques de vérité(s) résident d...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.011

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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