MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290701279 · doi:10.3917/entre.hs1.0013

20 ans de publications en héritage : Des conversations à poursuivre et de nouvelles à initier

2022· article· fr· W4290701279 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Lefèbvre, Cécile Fonrouge

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de l’Entrepreneuriat · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat (RE) fête ses 20 ans. Plutôt qu’une rétrospective narrative des aventures de la revue, nous avons adopté un parti pris objectivant la revue, faisant de cette dernière notre objet de recherche. Pour cela, nous avons décidé d’étudier tous les articles publiés dans la revue. Au cours des vingt dernières années, la RE a publié 194 articles dans 51 numéros dont 7 numéros doubles. Afin de conserver une homogénéité entre les différentes composantes de notre analyse, nous n’avons retenu que les articles ayant passé le processus de révision. Cela exclut, entre autres, les interviews, les introductions et les éditoriaux. Le premier numéro de 2021 aura été l’occasion d’une autre célébration, celle du 200e article publié dans la RE. Nous avons, d’une part, procédé à une analyse descriptive de l’évolution de la revue, en relevant ses principaux contributeurs, l’évolution des articles publiés, les auteurs les plus cités et les thématiques les plus abordées. Dans un deuxième temps, nous avons codé chaque article ainsi que les contributeurs afin de mieux mettre en lumière la nature des articles (empiriques ou conceptuels) et à leur contenu (thèmes, méthodes, niveau d’analyse).

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0210.027
Scholarly communication0.0340.033
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de l’EntrepreneuriatSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207