Fondements théoriques et méthodologiques de la recherche-intervention : communication et démocratie dans des organisations sociosanitaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article propose une réflexion sur les espaces de dialogue créés ou observés au cours de recherches-interventions menées au sein d’organisations sociosanitaires. Plus largement, il s’agit de comprendre comment la recherche-intervention contribue à la démocratisation des communications humaines dans les organisations. Comment permet-elle d’inclure les actrices et les acteurs de l’organisation en créant des communications augmentant le pouvoir d’agir des individus occupant des positions souvent insuffisamment valorisées. Nous nous appuyons sur la philosophie afin d’éclairer les liens entre démocratie, organisation, communication et intervention pour mieux situer le développement d’une perspective critique des approches de recherche-intervention en milieux organisés. À partir d’exemples de recherches réalisées dans des organisations sociosanitaires du Québec et du Brésil, nous discutons finalement des forces et des limites de pratiques de recherche misant sur les espaces de 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 | 0.106 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".