REPENSER NOS MODES ORGANISATIONNELLES DANS LE DOMAINE ARCHITECTURAL : REPOSITIONNER LE « PROJET » COMME UN ESPACE COMMUNICATIONNEL
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans ce court article, nous interrogeons la place des technologies numeriques dans la creation architecturale, notamment les outils de conception assistee par ordinateur (CAO) et, par consequent, l’espace de communication qu’ils soutiennent. Nous questionnons la capacite de ces techniques de mener a bien un processus de conception integree (PCI); soit une methode collaborative cherchant a satisfaire une vision de ce qu’est une « bonne » demarche de conception pour realiser des architectures dites ecologiques et attachees aux valeurs culturelles de leur milieu d’implantation. Nous exposons alors les limites d’utilisation de ces technologies en architecture pour la realisation de construction durable, pour ensuite proposer des voies communicationnelles alternatives et complementaires. A terme, notre proposition remet au cœur des processus de travail en architecture la notion de « projet » envisagee comme un objet-frontiere; et dont le deploiement est intrinsequement lie a l’« action » des acteurs concernes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it