MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400186175 · doi:10.4000/11wxh

Sur Cybernétique et société. L’usage humain des êtres humains de Norbert Wiener

2024· article· fr· W4400186175 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Pinède

Bibliographic record

VenueQuestions de communication · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsCybernet Systems Corporation (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé : Depuis la moitié du xxe siècle, la nouvelle théorie des messages et de la régulation par l’information qu’est la cybernétique n’a cessé d’évoluer et de se ramifier dans de multiples directions. L’ouvrage Cybernétique et société. L’usage humain des êtres humains, qui propose aux lecteurs une présentation de la cybernétique allégée de ses fondements mathématiques et orientée vers ses conséquences humaines, sociales et politiques, fut au début des années 1950 un véritable succès éditorial, à l’instar de l’ouvrage fondateur qui l’a précédé de deux ans, La Cybernétique. Information et régulation dans le vivant et la machine. L’objet de cet article est de revenir sur le contexte scientifique et géopolitique particulier dans lequel prit corps la cybernétique en lien avec la trajectoire singulière d’un savant hors normes, Norbert Wiener. Nous reviendrons également de façon approfondie sur les concepts, la pensée et la démarche d’écriture présentée dans Cybernétique et société. L’usage humain des êtres humains avant de dérouler quelques fils de l’héritage de la cybernétique, notamment en sciences de l’information et de la communication.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuestions de communicationSame topicPhilosophical and Theoretical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207