REPENSER NOS MODES ORGANISATIONNELLES DANS LE DOMAINE ARCHITECTURAL : REPOSITIONNER LE « PROJET » COMME UN ESPACE COMMUNICATIONNEL
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".