Gouverner l'innovation, entre sciences dures et arts plastiques: le consortium interuniversitaire Hexagram (Montréal, Canada)*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the academic stream of technological arts, the national systems of innovation are involved in a reconfiguration of research and development organizations, which are aimed at marketing hybrid products that are now concurrently oriented towards artistic presentation, technology transfer and an application in both the commercial and industrial sense. This article provides an initial analysis of the motives and organizational pressures involved in these attempts to integrate and articulate academic research, artistic creation and industrial production in a perspective of competitiveness in innovation. It draws on the results of a survey conducted with artist‐researchers who created a Canadian organizational prototype of these partnerships: the Hexagram inter‐university consortium (Montréal, Canada). Les ← systèmes d'innovation nationaux → engagent dans la filière universitaire des arts technologiques une reconfiguration des organisations de recherche et de création. Ces dernières visent la mise sur le marché de produits hybrides orientés désormais concurremment vers une exposition artistique, une valorisation scientifique et une application au sens commercial et industriel du terme. L'article propose une première analyse des ressorts et tensions organisationnelles de ces tentatives d'intégration et d'articulation de la recherche universitaire, de la création artistique et de la production industrielle dans une perspective de concurrence à l'innovation. Il mobilise les résultats d'une enquête menée auprès de chercheurs‐créateurs d'un prototype canadien d'organisation de ces rapprochements: le consortium interuniversitaire Hexagram (Montréal, Canada).
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".