La restitution comme espace de confrontation de savoirs pluriels : le cas d’une recherche-intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette contribution étudie les interrelations entre la sphère scientifique et la sphère socio-politique à travers l’analyse de la confrontation de connaissances et de savoirs pluriels au cours d’une première restitution intermédiaire des résultats. Ce temps de présentation et d’échange avec les commanditaires (une municipalité) s’inscrit dans un observatoire du «vivre sa jeunesse». Dans le cadre d’une recherche-intervention, il s’agit de comprendre comment cette situation d’interaction concourt à la fois au développement d’un savoir partagé et à l’articulation des enjeux de la science et du politique. Pour ce faire, la sociologie de la traduction (Callon, 1989) et la théorie de la spirale de connaissances (Nonaka et Takeuchi, 1997) sont mobilisées pour interroger les discours produits dans le cadre de cette restitution. L’analyse sémantique et thématique des discours ainsi que des interactions met au jour les prémices d’un savoir partagé qui permet un réinvestissement dans la praxis.
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 | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".