Le rôle de la technologie dans les expériences de coproduction de service : une lecture sociale de la valeur perçue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article a pour objectif de comprendre et d’identifier les valeurs perçues des expériences de coproduction de service avec et sans dispositif technologique, à travers le prisme de la théorie de la structuration sociale. Une étude qualitative suivie de deux études quantitatives sont menées dans deux restaurants. La première étude qualitative nous a permis d’identifier 8 types de valeurs perçues d’une expérience de consommation, classées selon les dimensions du structurel : significations, domination et légitimation. Les deux études quantitatives menées dans un système de service avec et sans technologie, montrent que les dispositifs technologiques donnent lieu à des interprétations socialement différentes en termes de propriétés du structurel et de valeurs perçues. Ce résultat nous permet de formuler des recommandations managériales sur le design des dispositifs technologiques pour une meilleure appropriation par les consommateurs.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".