Bibliographic record
Abstract
La mise en perspective de près de dix années d’études d’usages numériques dans le secteur muséal qui rend compte de la richesse de l’approche empirique permet d’analyser le renouvellement de la diffusion culturelle. La recherche critique sur les usages engage des enjeux méthodologiques favorisant, sur le terrain, des suivis d’usagers plutôt que le recueil de données exclusivement centrées sur les usages, afin de cerner les interactions de pratiques. L’approche interdisciplinaire, croisant les sciences de l’information et de la communication, la sociologie et les sciences de l’ingénieur, est mobilisée. Ainsi, l’articulation entre étude de terrain, comme contribution à l’analyse de l’appropriation sociale des technologies numériques, et cadres théorique et conceptuel relatifs à la recherche critique et interdisciplinaire sur les usages ouvre sur la dialectique du renoncement négocié.
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 | 0.031 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".