Des communautés de pratique en milieu universitaire : Quels défis et quelle valeur pour l’innovation dans l’organisation ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notre article s’intéresse au transfert des connaissances dans deux communautés de pratique universitaires. Nous avons procédé à une analyse comparée de deux communautés de pratique dont l’origine de création et la motivation sont très différentes, bien qu’elles soient toutes les deux issues du milieu universitaire, un milieu rarement étudié sur ce plan. Nous avons observé plusieurs avantages, notamment le développement d’une culture collaborative, le partage des pratiques ou le développement de partenariats. Toutefois, le potentiel d’innovation paraît limité, notamment en raison de la disjonction entre la logique des travailleurs participants et celle de la direction ainsi que l’absence d’acteurs transversaux qui pourraient favoriser le développement des capacités d’apprentissage au sein de ces systèmes sociaux.
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 | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".