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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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