Le régime de recherche utilitaire du professeur‐consultant au cours de la Seconde Révolution industrielle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the Second Industrial revolution, consulting professor bridged higher education institutions with industry and government. A concept like the utilitarian research regime by Terry Shinn can explain their material and intellectual production by allowing for a reconstruction of their social networks. Pierre‐Paul LeCointe (d. 1948) and Louis Bourgoin (1891–1951), associates in an engineering consultancy office, institutionalised a consultation service at the Laboratory of Industrial Chemistry of the École Polytechnique of Montreal (1917). The two industrial chemists were thereby able to obtain financial, material and human resources through exchanges with industrialists, business men and civil servants; consequently, their material and intellectual production is marked by the preoccupations of the industries and government with whom they exchanged. Industrial development in Canada was, in part, based on the work of these consultants who helped private companies analyse primary resources, standardize fabrication procedures and adapt the production to regulations. The government also offered technological assistance to businesses thanks to consultants, while regulating the markets and producing industrial standards. The inception of a utilitarian research regime results from the conjunction of these different factors. Finally, on Bourgoin's initiative, the École Polytechnique created a research centre (1946) based on the model of consulting laboratories.
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 | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".