Science Behind Closed Doors: On the Protection of the National Scientific Capability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dissemination of data and the circulation of scientists are widely regarded as pivotal factors in the advancement of science. However, several countries, including the European Union, Canada and the United States, have recently adopted restrictive policies designed to protect scientific results against economic espionage, hostile military use or terrorist diversion. This article examines the legal frameworks that have been implemented in France to protect the nation's ‘scientific and technological capability’. The French approach encompasses the establishment of restricted zones (ZRR), which include three key elements: the creation of protected areas, the restriction of access to these areas and the limitation of data circulation. This has resulted in a fragmentation of scientific communities based on ‘communities of trust’. The article illustrates the resurgence of a legal framework for scientific research centred on national interests, suggesting a possible retreat in the openness of science.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".