Entre réflexion et action : les défis et enjeux d'un processus de transfert de connaissances dans un espace national de concertation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent essai fait un retour sur une expérience de stage réalisé dans le cadre de la maîtrise en Pratiques de recherche et action publique. Le stage s’est effectué auprès du Collectif des partenaires en développement des communautés composé d'une vingtaine d’organisations nationales issues de divers secteurs ainsi que par des citoyens intéressés par cette thématique. \nCe stage avait pour objectif d’outiller le Collectif afin qu’il puisse exercer son rôle d’influence de manière efficiente auprès des autres acteurs oeuvrant en développement des communautés. Le moyen envisagé pour y parvenir fut d’opter pour la création d’un plan de transfert des connaissances. Ultimement, ce plan devait amener les membres du Collectif à élaborer des activités de transfert vers les autres acteurs interpellés par ce type de développement. \nOr, un bilan de ce stage fait ressortir l’écart existant entre les principes du transfert et de la mobilisation des connaissances, et la réalité sur le terrain. En effet, si le processus de plan de transfert a permis de clarifier les priorités de l'organisation, les publics cibles, les objectifs et les activités de communication, il a aussi fait ressortir des questionnements fondamentaux. \nCet écart entre principes et réalité s’explique par trois éléments : les difficultés d’adaptation du langage propre au développement des communautés, un contexte en mouvance au Québec qui a métamorphosé les structures en appui à ce type de développement et le fait que le Collectif peut être considéré comme une « méta-organisation » comportant son lot de défis et de questionnements. This essay examines an internship experience as part of Master's Degree in Research Practices and Public Action. The internship took place at the Collectif des partenaires en développement des communautés, made up of about twenty national organizations from various sectors as well as citizens interested in this theme. \nThe purpose of this internship was to equip the Collectif so that it could exercise its role of influence in an efficient way with other actors working in community development. To this end, it was decided to create a knowledge transfer plan. Eventually, this plan was to lead the members of the Collectif to develop transfer activities to the other actors concerned by this type of development. \nHowever, a review of this internship highlights the gap between the principles of knowledge transfer and mobilization, and the reality on the ground. Indeed, while the transfer plan process helped to clarify the organization's priorities, target audiences, objectives and communications activities, it also highlighted some fundamental issues. \nThis difference between principles and reality is explained by three elements: the difficulties of adapting the language specific to the development of communities, a context in motion in Quebec that has transformed the structures in support of this type of development and the fact that the Collectif can be considered a "meta-organization" with its share of challenges and questions.
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 | 0.030 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".