Le design social : une sociologie des associations par le design ? Le cas de deux démarches de codesign dans des projets de rénovation des bibliothèques de la Ville de Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article vise à exposer un travail de recherche amorcé à l’automne 2013 à propos des conditions, des enjeux et des effets de l’intégration des principes de l’innovation ouverte et, plus particulièrement, de l’approche design et du codesign dans le développement des institutions comme les bibliothèques publiques. Il propose dans un premier temps une théorie pragmatique originale du design social, à la frontière du design et de la sociologie, comme sociologie des associations par le design. Il présente ensuite deux démarches de codesign réalisées en 2014 en recherche-intervention dans le cadre de projets de rénovation de bibliothèques d’arrondissement de la Ville de Montréal.
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 | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".