L’utilité de la sociologie pour comprendre le passage de l’imaginaire à l’innovation dans les organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La sociologie de l’imaginaire contribue à mieux comprendre le processus d’innovation dans les organisations et les entreprises. Cette approche consiste à étudier de quelle manière l’imaginaire est géré par les individus et les groupes, pour devenir un élément de productivité, ou un frein à l’innovation. Il est par exemple établi de quelle manière l’imaginaire peut constituer un exutoire cognitif particulièrement utile dans les structures technoscientifiques pour éviter des problèmes dans la gestion du délire logique qui en émane. L’imaginaire se retrouve à toutes les phases du processus d’innovation, chez les scientifiques chargés d’inventer de nouveaux objets, mais aussi dans les considérations des experts en marketing, chargés de commercialiser les innovations. La sociologie est utilisée pour mieux comprendre l’innovation, et les rouages imaginaires qui y participent.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".