MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294592246 · doi:10.3917/graph1.079.0099

La notion de juste et de bon dans l’institution sociale. De droit ou d’éthique ?

2022· article· fr· W4294592246 on OpenAlexaff
Didier Benoit, Marc Jean

Bibliographic record

VenueSociographe · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesInstitutionPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Avec une approche de l’institution ricœurienne qui recouvre des espaces où se jouent les rapports humains participant à son fonctionnement, il s’agit de montrer une façon dont l’action sociale épouse une fonction réparatrice de ce que la vie fait peser comme inéquitable. Dans ce contexte, l’institution s’érige selon un système d’acteurs, fédéré par la symbolique de la solidarité. Cette visée ne prend sens que dans l’affirmation d’un projet politique qui transcende l’approche réductrice de l’institution comme simple espace de gestion du quotidien.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.079
Scholarly communication0.0150.018
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociographeSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207