MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4298006811 · doi:10.4000/communication.16284

L’écriture comme méthode de recherche

2022· article· fr· W4298006811 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Florence Darveau Routhier

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article se déploie à la manière d’un jeu de diffractions composé de diverses formes d’écriture. Il s’organise autour d’une carte conceptuelle ayant trouvé son impulsion dans une proposition, à savoir celle d’ouvrir des espaces de réflexion et d’articuler des considérations et des questions utiles et pertinentes dans une démarche d’exploration de l’écriture comme méthode de recherche non extractiviste, bienveillante et potentiellement inscrite dans le care.

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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0170.013
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.865
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication→Same topicEducation, sociology, and vocational training→French-language works237,207→