MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252094007 · doi:10.4000/elh.972

Nous n’avons pas fait de détails

2009· article· fr· W4252094007 on OpenAlexaff
Bastien Gallet

Bibliographic record

VenueÉcrire l histoire · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

S’il fallait d’une phrase résumer notre entreprise (qui finit par prendre la forme d’un livre, Anastylose, j’y viens tout de suite), ce pourrait être celle-ci : « Nous n’avons pas fait de détails, mais nous avons beaucoup détaillé. » Peut-être devrais-je avant d’aller plus loin expliquer ce que j’entends par ce verbe, « détailler », qui d’aucune manière ne veut dire « s’intéresser aux détails » (sens 1). Détailler signifie « couper en morceaux » (sens 2) : séparer, puis disperser le détail –...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.009

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉcrire l histoireSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207