Les émergences en recherche-action : sérendipité ou choc de culture ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article explore la dimension culturelle de la formation en éducation relative à l’environnement dans le cadre de recherches-actions. Lors de celles-ci, les protagonistes sont souvent issus de sous-cultures socioprofessionnelles différentes impliquant des modes de fonctionnement différents. La prise en compte de ces différences culturelles est susceptible de poser la question fondamentale du statut des « émergences » en recherche-action : peut-on continuer à considérer que les éventuelles « émergences » susceptibles de s’y produire soient toutes le fruit du hasard, selon l’interprétation d’une science positiviste ? Pour illustrer ce propos, un exemple concret d’émergence ayant son origine dans les différences de cultures en présence dans une recherche-action en situation de formation sera présenté ; des pistes permettant de tenir compte activement de ces émergences seront identifiées.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".