Transition énergétique et hydrogène : le Living Lab ou l’ébauche d’une recherche participative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les possibilités de décentralisation de la production promises par l’hydrogène offrent des perspectives politiques nouvelles à la transition énergétique. Ainsi, la démarche Living Lab, engagée en Normandie, constitue une expérience originale de « fabrique des publics » reposant sur une méthodologie appliquée habituellement à la co-construction de l’innovation. Engageant acteurs institutionnels, participants, mais aussi organisateurs et chercheurs dans un procédé se rapprochant de la recherche participative, cette initiative devait faciliter une appropriation « commune » de l’hydrogène passant par l’élaboration de scénarios d’usage mobilisant ce vecteur énergétique et leur prototypage. Après avoir présenté les modalités de la mise en œuvre du Living Lab et ses principaux acteurs, cet article tracera l’historique de deux prototypes élaborés en son sein. Ils permettront de mesurer la pertinence de la démarche qui, malgré les contraintes institutionnelles qui pèsent sur elle, reste porteuse de perspectives émancipatrices pour les participants.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".