L’acceptabilité sociale : une question de démocratie participative ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current context of digital transformation of the way organizations operate and are designed, the purpose of this paper is to rethink the concept of rationality in order to provide new insights on how the choices made individually by social actors could help to shape sociotechnical change at the organizational and societal levels. We propose a theoretical synthesis of the principal conceptions of rationality in the social sciences: that is, the dominant theory of rational choice and other critical approaches developed, among others, by Foucault, Habermas, Boudon, and Archer. The paper revisits and reconciles the views developed by the latter two authors in particular. Boudon favors an enlarged conception of rationality (called ordinary rationality), as developed by Weber (1922), which includes the instrumentalist, normative, and representational dimensions. We propose to associate this model with the reflexivity model developed by Archer (2003) in order to define a new approach: reflexive ordinary rationality, which is based upon three underlying ideas: (1) The unit of analysis of social action is the individual; (2) Social structures affect and are affected by individual actions; (3) Behind each individual action there is a system of reasons related to certain modes of reflexivity that we can define. Hence, this paper proposes a new analytical framework for studying current and future sociotechnical changes related to the interactions between individuals and digital technologies.
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 | 0.037 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".