MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390641985 · doi:10.4000/statsoc.647

Justifier des nombres ? Une enquête sur les controverses autour du dénombrement des phoques et des morues au Canada

2023· article· fr· W4390641985 on OpenAlexaffabout
Florian Sanguinet

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistique et société · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’augmentation de la population de phoques au Canada à partir des années 1980 génère des tensions quant aux dégâts qu’ils provoqueraient sur les pêcheries. Après l’effondrement des populations de morues Canadienne en 1992, le problème devient incontournable. Au travers de cette étude de cas, cet article décrit les trajectoires différenciées de la construction de deux nombres : les nombres phoques et les nombres morues. Il s’intéresse aux controverses entourant la production de ces nombres et aux justifications sous-jacentes attenants à ces conflits.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.035
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistique et sociétéSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207