Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse sous deux angles les résultats d'études menées sur 5 campus numériques français nés des appels à projets ministériels des années 2000 à 2002 ainsi que de deux études canadiennes (l'une concernant une université de l'Ontario, l'autre une formation en ligne de la Teluq).L'analyse est organisée autour de deux points forts : le devenir des formes partenariales engagées dans la figure imposée du consortium et celui de l'acte culturel et social de formation.Concernant le premier point, il s'avère que l'idée du consortium comme nouvelle entité porteuse de modernité dans l'université française se trouve malmenée à l'épreuve quotidienne des terrains.Quant à l'acte culturel et social de formation, il n'a pas été modifié de façon radicale dans la confrontation à de nouveaux dispositifs, mais, à l'évidence, la période présente est lourde de contradictions non résolues.Les réalités canadiennes sont évoquées pour éclairer la situation française d'un double point de vue.ABSTRACT.This article presents the issues of studies carried out on 5 virtual campuses resulting from ministerial calls for projects from 2000 to 2002, as well as 2 Canadian studies (one about a university in Ontario and the other about an on line course in Teluq).We have planned our study to enlighten 2 points : what happens with partnerships committed in compulsory figure of "consortium"?And what happens to training activity from a cultural quite as much as social point of view?As far as the first point is concerned, it's turned out that the idea of consortium as a new modern issue has been mistreated when faced to real situations.Concerning the second point, the training activity has not been changed in a radical way when confronted to new systems, but obviously many inconsistencies are still to be solved at present time.Canadian studies are pointed out to shed light on the French situation from a double point of view.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.002 |
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".