MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981956664

Géolocalisation des pairs à l’adolescence et enjeux relationnels : les usages sociaux de la SnapMap

2023· other· fr· W6981956664 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCairn.info · 2023
Typeother
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Interpretation (philosophy)Public policyGovernment (linguistics)Feature (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis quelques annes, la frquentation juvnile des espaces communicationnels en ligne s'accompagne de vrifications de prsence toujours plus diversifies et intrusives, telles que l'heure de la dernire connexion, l'ouverture ou non d'un contenu ou le fait d'tre en train de rdiger une rponse.La SnapMap, issue de l'application Snapchat, s'impose aujourd'hui comme une illustration significative de cette logique de surveillance, en permettant aux jeunes d'afficher en temps rel leur position gographique.Cette contribution empirique, qui s'appuie sur une mthodologie qualitative (27 entretiens semi-directifs), rend compte des appropriations, dtournements et enjeux de ce dispositif sociotechnique particulirement bavard sur la prsence et l'activit, en ligne comme hors ligne, des pairs adolescents.Il ressort que si elle peut tre utilise par simple curiosit ou servir des stratgies de regroupement ou d'vitement, la SnapMap reste surtout un rvlateur de vrit dans le cas de fortes amitis ou de relations sentimentales.Elle apparat aussi comme un espace rsolument codifi : la dconnexion volontaire l'outil entrane la ncessit d'une justification et le manque de matrise dans le partage de sa localisation y est socialement sanctionn.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCairn.infoSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207