‘Science’- of value to hazard & disaster challenges; an exposé on interdisciplinary research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the Indian Himalaya, ongoing, multi-disciplinary, tri-lateral (Canada, India, UK), participatory (light) research is exploring interconnected questions of mountain system process-hazard dynamics, community heritage-vulnerability- resilience conditions, and rapid development implications (e.g. HEP) in the context of international sustainable development and disaster risk reduction policy accords, in order to fashion a more sustainable future. Pursuing this hybridisation of themes has required large shifts across traditional intra/inter subject boundaries, and so many lessons have already been learned. This approach has without doubt been hugely beneficial in delivering an enhanced level of knowledge involving a range of non-academic organisations and communities speaking their local languages. Here we draw upon these research experiences, making the case that physical sciences are very much part of the effort to seek better understanding of and futures for the world, where a holistic understanding has to draw upon the in-depth approaches and outcomes of a range of disciplines. We seek to show the benefits of this approach to date, but equally to generate debate around a number of contentions; a challenge we should embrace together: (1) Current thinking suggests that Interdisciplinarity has great potential to provide something greater than the sum of its parts. We suggest that this needs to be a genuine meeting of minds and a willingness to work together on the part of all the players. Hence we ask ‘interdisciplinarity for whom and using who’s methods?’ (2) Is this interdisciplinary endeavour merely following an in-vogue paradigm and being used as a vehicle of power for some parts of the interdisciplinary whole? Indeed disciplinarity seems to be negatively cast, being touted as a dirty word by some. But let’s not forget if we don’t develop discipline based knowledge, with parity, then we fail to populate cross-disciplinary endeavours with an improving knowledge and technique baseline, this will in due course stifle the progress of interdisciplinarity. Hence lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater! (3) Employers delivering technical services do still seek depth of disciplinary knowledge, so we need to create degree programmes that deliver societally relevant depth and breadth- this calls for a mix of the old and the new, not just radicalism! (4) The language and approach of interdisciplinarity to date generates genuine discomfort in the scientific community- this we cannot ignore; together, we need to co-produce a better model of interdisciplinarity that fully embraces all of the disciplines represented in any project partnership. These are not mindlessly provocative, anachronistic denials of the world; but instead genuinely open reflections of earth scientists/ geographers who do work in an already diverse discipline and more so across boundaries. We all have to talk, in common tongue, seeking to understand the array of contributions that can be brought into the mix, otherwise interdisciplinarity will develop within intrinsic bias/ reduced capacity and therefore fall short in optimising pathways to impact. This was a Dec 2016 presentation, which we re-discuss with a different multi-disciplinary audience
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».