MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949241884 · doi:10.3917/proj.022.0033

Les innovations sociales à la lumière de la notion de communautés de personnes

2019· article· fr· W2949241884 on OpenAlex
Marie-Noëlle Albert, Nadia Lazzari Dodeler, Jean-Pierre Pérouma

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProjectics / Proyéctica / Projectique · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec à RimouskiMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSocial innovationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les innovations sociales réfèrent à la création et à la mise en œuvre d’idées nouvelles concernant la manière dont les individus devraient organiser des activités interpersonnelles ou des interactions sociales, afin de dégager un ou plusieurs objectifs communs (Mumford, 2002). Ainsi, les innovations sociales concernent ce qui a trait aux personnes et à ce qui les rassemble. C’est pourquoi, il nous a semblé pertinent d’étudier une innovation sociale à la lumière de la notion de communauté de personnes (Melé, 2012), cette notion se distingue à la fois des points de vue individualiste et collectiviste. Pour ce faire, nous avons réalisé une autopraxéographie sur une recherche-action ayant pour objectif la mise en œuvre d’une innovation sociale. Les résultats insistent sur l’importance de favoriser la mise en place de communautés de personnes pour permettre des innovations sociales. Ainsi, cela permet de transformer les cibles de l’innovation sociale en passant d’une cible à trois niveaux (individu, organisation, territoire), à une cible formée de communautés de personnes.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.323 · 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