« Consommation collaborative » ou la rencontre improbable entre organisations, communautés et individus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malgré la multiplication des études empiriques sur le sujet de la consommation collaborative, force est de constater que les bases conceptuelles et théoriques relatives à ce phénomène demeurent relativement faibles. Cette constatation est d’autant plus remarquable eu égard au fait que la jonction entre individus, organisations et communauté, qu’induit la consommation collaborative, a des répercussions profondes sur les circuits marchands conventionnels. Cet article vise à étoffer les fondements théoriques et conceptuels liés au concept de consommation collaborative en l’explorant sous l’angle plus circonscrit des pratiques de mutualisation et de redistribution de biens tangibles, appelées pratiques de seconde vie des objets. L’étude propose ainsi, tout d’abord, une définition de la consommation collaborative, suivie ensuite par l’introduction d’un cadre conceptuel dans lequel s’inscrit le sous-ensemble des pratiques de seconde vie des objets, avant de conclure sur l’impact du phénomène sur le processus du consommateur.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".