Une approche communicationnelle de l'interdisciplinarité: regard ethnographique sur l'espace frontalier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La collaboration interdisciplinaire est toujours depourvue de methodes de travail efficientes. Les chercheurs en parlent generalement en usant les termes de : confrontation, negociation, consensus, reajustement et coordination. Pourtant, contrairement a cette litterature sur le sujet, notre recherche de maitrise a montre que dans le « faire » concerte autour de la construction d’un objet architectural, les frontieres disciplinaires disparaissent. Additionne a cet agir commun facilitant la collaboration interdisciplinaire, nous avons aussi note la participation probante de la materialite et des lieux. Desirant poursuivre cette reflexion sous une perspective sociomaterielle des phenomenes sociaux, et comme ce recent tournant ontologique est encore deficient de methodes prouvees efficaces, cet article a pour objectif d’en suggerer une methodologie appropriee. Nous proposons l’ethnographie organisationnelle comme demarche de recherche possible pour rendre compte de l’intervention d’elements de nature heterogene dans les processus collaboratifs. Ainsi, en reponse a notre positionnement theorique en communication, en deuxieme partie de cet article, nous lui articulerons une methodologie ethnographique.
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 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".