Acteurs intermédiaires de la mobilisation territoriale : les enseignements des démarches de prospective-action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
De nombreux exercices de prospective territoriale en France se placent aujourd’hui sous les auspices d’un registre participatif. À partir d’une lecture des cahiers des charges des démarches conduites par des agences d’urbanisme d’agglomération, nous entrons dans le monde des consultants menant de telles démarches en interrogeant leurs savoir-faire, leurs parcours et les manières dont ils croisent références et expériences professionnelles. Multipositionnés, avec une culture large de l’action publique, ces acteurs sont en situation de proposition d’innovations méthodologiques ancrées dans la perception, la transcription et l’expression des questions urbaines. Aussi ce matériau est-il particulièrement intéressant pour analyser les manières dont le « design thinking » – expression aujourd’hui choyée par plusieurs de ces intervenants – vient nourrir les projets de territoire et repositionner les acteurs de la production idéologique de l’espace.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".