Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur les formes d’implication d’acteurs dits non scientifiques dans la recherche, et sur l’émergence de nouvelles expertises, à travers le cas des recherches linguistiques sur les langues des signes. Nous exposons en quoi les grands registres de participation de locuteurs sourds relèvent d’activités de médiations culturelle et linguistique. Nous analysons ensuite comment se déclinent les tâches et responsabilités endossées par ces personnes au sein d’un laboratoire de linguistique spécialisé dans l’analyse de la Langue des Signes Québécoise. Cet article, qui s’appuie sur une analyse ethnographique de ces activités scientifiques, montre la montée en expertise des locuteurs impliqués dans ces recherches. Il invite à une articulation des études sur la science, les formes d’actions collectives et l’émergence de nouvelles expertises, et évoque le caractère central d’une analyse des pratiques – même routinières – d’inscription et de communication scientifiques.
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 | 0.074 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.008 |
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".