MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805062705 · doi:10.4000/communiquer.2351

La production participative d’idées : quels effets du dispositif socio-technique sur les pratiques ?

2017· article· fr· W2805062705 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommuniquer Revue de communication sociale et publique · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le recours au public pour engendrer des idées créatives a été largement intégré par les organisations. Si ces dernières s’appuient depuis longtemps sur des modèles compétitifs pour stimuler la créativité, on assiste à l’émergence d’un nouveau modèle dit coopétitif, juxtaposant des éléments coopératifs et compétitifs. Cette recherche vise à comprendre comment la mise en œuvre d’un dispositif coopétitif favorise le processus créatif. Une étude empirique sur 9951 utilisateurs d’une plateforme montre la possibilité de les classer en fonction de leurs activités. Une variété de rôles (compétiteur, coopérateur, coopétiteur, supporteur) coexistent. Les membres du groupe coopétitif, poursuivant des buts à la fois antagonistes et complémentaires, exercent une fonction centrale dans le processus créatif alors qu’une majorité des utilisateurs se limite à l’évaluation des idées.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0080.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it