MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Le retrait à l’aune d’une analyse historique de l’innovation

2022· book-chapter· fr· W4312297556 on OpenAlexaff
Benoı̂t Godin

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses des Mines eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSociologyHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À une époque où l’innovation n’avait pas la cote (XVI-XVIIIe siècles), supprimer les innovations existantes était un leitmotiv. Le retrait est une pratique ancienne. J’ai précédemment documenté les aléas du concept d’innovation au temps de la Réforme et au cours des trois siècles qui suivirent [Godin, 2015]. Les usages que l’on faisait du concept étaient alors péjoratifs, accusatoires et polémiques. La Réforme se voulait un acte d’imitation plutôt que d’innovation. Il s’agissait de retourner ...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses des Mines eBooksSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207