Les nouveaux modes de production de connaissances, la recherche en PME et le développement économique : l’inévitable tension entre « pertinence sociale » et « scientificité »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le débat au sujet de l’actionnabilité des connaissances scientifiques et, plus largement, de leur pertinence sociale oblige plus que jamais la communauté scientifique à interroger ses formes d’organisation, ses valeurs, son fonctionnement et les rapports qu’elle entretient avec ses partenaires sociaux. Ses manifestations transcendent tout en incluant la recherche en contexte PME. Prises dans leur ensemble, elles participent à l’émergence d’un nouvel ethos scientifique – nommé mode 2 par les uns et science post-académique par les autres – qui pourrait devenir une importante ponctuation dans l’histoire récente des sciences. Cet article a pour but de tracer les contours de ces nouveaux modes d’insertion sociale des connaissances et d’examiner comment ils contribuent à redéfinir et enrichir les termes du débat qui anime la communauté de recherche en contexte PME.
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 | 0.039 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".