MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7087553248 · doi:10.7202/1118966ar

Écrire avec les modèles de l’esprit encodés dans les dispositifs numériques

2024· article· fr· W7087553248 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSens public · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower (physics)Context (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Work (physics)Identity (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loin d’être des intermédiaires neutres, les outils de création numérique tels que Word, Power Point, Facebook, Instagram ou Gmail matérialisent les « modèles mentaux » prônés par leurs créateurs et propriétaires. Des premières œuvres du Net art aux œuvres de littérature numérique de « troisième génération » écrites et publiées sur des plateformes sociales, comment les auteurs négocient-ils avec ces modèles ? Je discute dans cet article des exemples historiques (Annie Abrahams, Don’t touch me &nbps;; Jean-Pierre Balpe, « Rachel Charlus ») et des exemples tirés de ma propre pratique de recherche et de création ( Böhmische Dörfer , Nouvelles de la Colonie ), en m’appuyant sur une méthodologie techno-sémiotique.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
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 venueSens publicSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207