Récit praxéologique : une approche éthique pour accompagner les transformations socioécologiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les grandes transformations socioécologiques qui secouent actuellement le système Terre entraînent un questionnement complexe sur les rapports que nous devrions entretenir entre soi, les autres et la nature. En revanche, ce questionnement éthique est rarement discuté dans les organisations. S’il existe une panoplie de guides, de grilles d’analyse et de normes visant l’opérationnalisation du changement socioécologique, il en existe beaucoup moins portant sur la construction de ses valeurs et finalités. À travers un récit de pratique et d’une analyse praxéologique, le présent article porte sur la formalisation d’un processus participatif par le dialogue permettant l’accompagnement de groupes dans la co-construction de sa posture éthique. Ce regard réflexif sur la pratique met en relation les dynamiques éthiques, le dialogue et les processus participatifs dans une organisation originale : le triangle du dialogue.
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 | 0.045 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".