MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099528396

Professeur émérite des Universités

2010· article· en· W7099528396 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsnobodyCuriosityCriticismFriendshipPassionPropositionAsideMistake
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

visiting for two years at the University of Toronto. I was then involved in "quantitative geography", quite new and popular at the time. But my curiosity went beyond matrix calculus or Volterra-Lotka distribution, into philosophy and particularly into Hegel's logic. I got in touch with Gunnar: both, we partook a deep interest in philosophy. It was the beginning of a friendship which saw us moving back and forth, with our graduate students, for philosophical seminars between Ann Arbor and Toronto. I still keep happy remembrances from this time past. Hopefully, this small paper might recall somehow our friendly meetings and our passion for philosophical thinking. Since then, my criticism of “territories ” and of French “Aménagement du territoire ” has gone further ahead. It has lead to an International colloquium in 2007 and to the publication of a book on The enemies of Paris. National and Regional Planning in France go, since half a century, under the name of "Aménagement du Territoire". Nobody seems to have noticed the pre-eminence given in this name to “territory ” over men. The role of planning is defined, in this way, as ensuring equality (in public equipment, activities, development...) between different pieces of land, not between different households. French media and politicians keep lamenting about territorial inequalities. When population, however, is concentrated in cities and resources are scarce, equality between

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Assessment and ImprovementFrench-language works237,207