Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’occultation de la dimension socio-politique du dispositif de débat peut conduire celui-ci à se révéler contre-productif au regard de la promotion de l’égalité, dès lors que la vigilance à ses conditions et modalités de réalisation s’avère insuffisante. L’étude d’une telle situation amène à considérer comment l’imbrication des rapports sociaux et la circulation du pouvoir dans un groupe performent les inégalités au sein du dispositif. La reconnaissance de la conflictualité inhérente au principe du débat ainsi que celle du point de vue situé ouvrent une piste explorée par les théoricien.ne.s des pédagogies critiques pour faire de cet espace-temps, un espace où égalité et liberté trouvent à s’articuler. Ce cadre théorique facilite la construction d’un positionnement légitime pour les professionnel.le.s de l’éducation dans la tension entre leur mission éducative, leur appartenance institutionnelle, et leur volonté de transformer les rapports sociaux.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.007 |
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".