Analyse communautaire : Smash Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La thèse défendue est que depuis ses tout débuts, la communauté de Smash à Montréal offre un nouveau modèle, plus ouvert, de gestion des relations de pouvoirs entre ses membres. La communauté a eu un long chemin à parcourir avant d’en arriver à une ouverture complète. L’autonomie de la communauté a été utilisée pour promouvoir une plus grande ouverture envers des membres de toutes les franges de la société pour faire croître son bassin de Smasheurs et Smasheuses. Par ailleurs, il est remarquable que la gestion des relations de pouvoir se produise de façon dynamique, c’est-à-dire entre ses membres -eux et elles-mêmes- plutôt que d’avoir une autorité en place pour gouverner la communauté. \n_____________________________________________________________________________ \nMOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : Communauté, jeux vidéos, relation de pouvoir
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.003 |
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".