MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4256328758 · doi:10.4000/communication.6114

Pascal PANSU, Nicole DUBOIS et Jean-Léon BEAUVOIS (2013), Dis-moi qui te cite, et je saurai ce que tu vaux. Que mesure vraiment la bibliométrie ?

2015· article· fr· W4256328758 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fabrice Buschini

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet opuscule, Pascal Pansu, Nicole Dubois et Jean-Léon Beauvois présentent un regard critique sur l’évaluation de la recherche scientifique et notamment sur son socle méthodologique : la bibliométrie d’impact. Structuré en cinq parties, l’ouvrage, tout en étant critique, n’est pas exempt de pragmatisme ni d’originalité, tout en étant à la fois didactique et politique. Le titre, agrémenté d’un sous-titre, contraste avec la taille du texte, mais, ensemble, ils en annoncent assez fidèlemen...

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.154 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication→Same topicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts→French-language works237,207→