MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392850672 · doi:10.21494/iste.op.2024.1128

Science-fiction et « innovations imaginaires » : essai typologique sur les technologies de mémoire totale

2024· article· fr· W4392850672 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuelle Caccamo

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnologie et innovation · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoiré patternArtPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le texte présente une typologie de technologies de « mémoire totale » imaginées dans un corpus de sciencefiction audiovisuelle entre 1990 et 2022.Filant la métaphore de la mémoire comme base de données et du plan, les technologies des diégèses permettent d'encoder et de conserver la mémoire humaine dans des formats numériques, d'accéder aux informations enregistrées et également d'altérer la mémoire et l'identité des individus.Cet essai explore les types de machines de mémoire totale qui spéculent sur les innovations technologiques ayant trait aux possibilités d'intervenir sur la faculté mnésique de l'humain.ABSTRACT.This paper presents a classification of the various types of "total memory" technologies which were imagined in a corpus of audiovisual science fiction between 1990 and 2022.These technologies, which often use the metaphor of memory as a database or plan, are depicted as allowing for the digitization and storage of human memories, as well as the retrieval and even modification of these memories and the identities of individuals.Through this analysis, this paper aims to explore such technological innovations for the enhancement or alteration of human mnemonic abilities.

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)0.010
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 score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.018
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.137 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnologie et innovationSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207