L'Europe, l'évaluation technologique et la régulation fractale mondiale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study attempts to make a theoretically informed analysis of technology assessment (TA) as part of postfordist global governance. It focuses first on the FAST programme of the EC, designed to regulate the relationship between producers of new technologies (industry, states) and civil society. The author shows that this regulation, based on the expertise of the social sciences, is largely asymmetrical in favour of the former and an attempt to engineer social consensus at the supranational level. The focus shifts then downwards to the numerous national and regional TA institutions in Western Europe which are all parts of a FAST dominated transnational network, as well as upwards to various related global TA activities (OECD, Lisbon Group, etc.). These different levels of analysis demonstrate that TA is politically constructed as a polycentric, non-hierarchical web of interrelated regulation mechanisms. As such, it is argued, it steadily permeates and recombines existing political structures and levels in order to meet as quickly as possible precise demands of legitimization and accumulation, and should therefore be called a « fractal » regulation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".