Pratiques fécondes de la pensée design pour la co-construction de solutions viables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Valorisée par diverses organisations à travers le monde, la pensée design a mené à plusieurs solutions novatrices. Pour construire des solutions vers un avenir viable, la pensée design apparaît comme une démarche prometteuse. Afin d’identifier les conditions d’utilisation optimales de la pensée design, 20 organisations spécialisées ont été interrogées pour comprendre leurs méthodes et leurs outils d’intervention. Les équipes multi-compétences, l’atmosphère d’empathie ouverte aux erreurs, la consultation continue des usagers, la formulation opérationnelle du défi conceptuel, le prototypage rapide, le matériel concret de représentation visuelle, l’emploi prudent d’outils technologiques et les espaces de travail mobiles sont parmi les ingrédients gagnants d’une démarche efficace. Notre analyse suggère qu’une démarche de pensée design où l’on retrouve ces conditions optimales, tout en enrichissant la démarche avec certaines dimensions cognitives et réflexives en environnement, serait pertinente à utiliser en éducation vers un avenir viable.
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 | 0.031 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".