Deux français en tête d'un contre la montre, les temps changent !

IA et métacognition : savoir quand on peut faire confiance, ou non, à la machine n’est pas toujours évident Un système d’IA doit toujours être supervisé par un humain, mais encore faut-il que cette personne soit en mesure de distinguer quand elle comprend ce que propose la machine et quand elle peut être influencée.

IA et métacognition : savoir quand on peut faire confiance, ou non, à la machine n’est pas toujours évident

« Nouveaux OGM » : le risque des brevets — l’opinion de Julien Fosse
➡️ https://www.altereco.media/bOe (Accès libre)

Je partage totalement (à ceci près que je dirais qu'il s'agit de l'un des coûts cachés, pas DU coût caché).

What is nice with dogs is they do not have phones for which they forget to activate the silent mode :-)

It reminded me that my last PhD student had his dog attending his PhD defense, for real in the room 😁

IA : les établissements d'enseignement secondaire et supérieur doivent sans délai encadrer les usages autorisés de l'intelligence artificielle par les étudiants. Une étudiante de la Sorbonne a fait rédiger son mémoire de fin d'étude par une IA. Faute de règles préalables précisant les modalités d'utilisation acceptables par l'université, un tribunal lui a donn...

Suite de l’affaire du mémoire par IA « Sachant que le contrôle des connaissances ne peut se résumer à l’aptitude des étudiants à formuler des consignes pertinentes aux IA auxquelles ils auront confié leurs devoirs ». www.franceinfo.fr/replay-radio... #IA #usage

Aïe, le chat aussi impacté par le déménagement...

Et à la cathédrale ?

La recharge de la nappe a été quasi inexistante depuis un an. En revanche le drainage a été très important durant le dernier mois de février !

Les 11 dernières années de drainage mensuel pour le lysimètre en sol nu de Fagnières (Grand Est). Le point de février surligné en rouge correspond au mois qui vient de se terminer. Les points entourés de rouge correspondent aux 12 derniers mois.
@florencehabets.bsky.social

CP - Les résultats d'un de nos dispositifs INRAE d' #EstréesMons :
Une étude expérimentale menée sur 10 ans montre le potentiel de systèmes de production agricoles sans pesticides url.inrae.fr/4aH3QYn

Grammarly Is a Cheating Machine - Daily Nous Grammarly is sometimes thought by instructors to be a relatively benign writing tool app, akin to a sophisticated spelling and grammar checker. That may have once been true, but as Kieran Barker, an e...

Profs, Grammarly is NOT the benign writing assistant you may have thought it is, but a powerful cheating machine that includes tools explicitly designed to help students hide the cheating done with it...

Une inspiration pour notre monde de la recherche ?

Point of no returns: researchers are crossing a threshold in the fight for funding With so little money to go round, the costs of competing for grants can exceed what the grants are worth. When that happens, nobody wins.

"In other words, European taxpayers will have spent more on the funding process than on the funding itself, and the scientific ecosystem has been drained"

The situation is rapidly becoming unsustainable: the current research funding scheme does not work.

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

🌿 Une plante qui protège les sols et l’eau ?
Le #miscanthus ne sert pas qu’à produire de la biomasse : des chercheurs d’ #INRAE montrent qu’il peut aussi aider à mieux gérer l’azote, réduire les #nitrates et rendre l’ #agriculture plus durable 🌍
👉 www.inrae.fr/actualites/g...

The killing of Alex Pretti is a heartbreaking tragedy. It should also be a wake-up call to every American, regardless of party, that many of our core values as a nation are increasingly under assault.

Robert Kennedy Jr et Donald Trump montrant un document signé

On parle souvent des conséquences catastrophiques de la politique sanitaire du gouvernement Trump, portée par son secrétaire à la santé complotiste et antivax Robert Kennedy Jr., à la fois aux US, mais aussi dans le reste du monde.

En voici un exemple terrifiant.

Thread à dérouler ci-dessous

1/16

Merci Rémi pour faire mon travail de diffusion :-) Et grand merci pour ta contribution !!

Oui c'est ce que je vois...

Merci pour la réf, je connaissais le principe de Peter mais pas Dilbert :-)

Comme souvent, un excellent billet sur les conséquences de passer d'une économie de la valeur à une économie du signal, y compris dans le monde académique. Difficile de ne pas partager le constat.

Closing out my year with a journal editor shocker 🧵

Checking new manuscripts today I reviewed a paper attributing 2 papers to me I did not write. A daft thing for an author to do of course. But intrigued I web searched up one of the titles and that's when it got real weird...

Un billet très intéressant sur le Japon et plus généralement le lien croissance et bon fonctionnement social !

It's fun how some statements, such as "we believe", span over a particularly wide range of assigned probability!

The CNRS is breaking free from the Web of Science From January 1st 2026, the CNRS will cut access to one of the largest commercial bibliometric databases, Clarivate Analytics'

From January 1st 2026, the CNRS will cut access to one of the largest commercial bibliometric databases, Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, along with the Core Collection and Journal Citation Reports.

Thanks for updating the link! 👍

The link does not seem to correspond to the topic!

A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.

A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.

A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.

The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.

We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

Comme je l'ai lu récemment je ne sais plus où, le conseil (excellent) qu'on pourrait donner à Laurent Alexandre pour paraphraser son torchon est : N'écrivez plus de livres (par pitié...).