Les musées de sciences, la « présence » des objets et les défis pédagogiques de l’habitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de ce texte est de jeter les bases théoriques et pratiques pour la création d’une approche complémentaire à la visite conventionnelle des musées de sciences et de techniques. Le point de vue proposé cherche à (re)centrer, à (re)focaliser encore plus la pédagogie et la didactique muséale sur l’objet. Comment, en effet, redonner à ces objets froids et inertes, généralement placés derrière d’austères vitrines, leur « présence » originelle, qui éveillera en nous non seulement le sens de la vue (la « beauté » esthétique et pratique de l’objet), mais tous les autres, sans lesquels les objets de notre quotidien perdent toute leur signification – leur sens. La clé d’analyse se trouve dans trois concepts : profondeur, procédé et participation. Et au coeur de ces concepts se cache l’habitus, l’apprentissage structuré et structurant de toute connaissance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".