« Les quatre mondes du lac Léman » ou explorer avec des non-voyants un paysage polysensoriel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La recherche géographique sur la non-voyance et la malvoyance tend à se focaliser sur les difficultés et les peurs rencontrées par les non-voyants dans leurs pratiques de mobilité, les excluant a priori d’autres types de réflexions, notamment sur le paysage, objet oculocentré traditionnel de la géographie. Pourtant, l’observation des expériences quotidiennes des non-voyants montre qu’on ne saurait se limiter à ces craintes et difficultés. En certaines circonstances, leur perception de l’environnement intègre des dimensions esthétiques : peut-on parler alors d’un sentiment paysager ? Il s’agit dans cet article d’explorer avec des non-voyants la dimension paysagère de leur relation à l’environnement, afin de montrer la richesse de leurs perceptions et représentations, tout en articulant une réflexion sur la polysensorialité du paysage permettant de dépasser l’oculocentrisme.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".