MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1950970486 · doi:10.7202/1023197ar

L’utilité de la sociologie pour comprendre le passage de l’imaginaire à l’innovation dans les organisations

2014· article· fr· W1950970486 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de recherche sociologique · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse multidisciplinary academic research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.212
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it