Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si le mouvement vers la médiation participative par le numérique rend compte d’une volonté de réactualiser les conditions de la démocratie culturelle, l’usage indifférencié de l’adjectif participatif empêche de penser le degré d’implication des individus et le travail de l’institution pour s’ouvrir à ses publics. Cet article propose d’interroger un projet participatif sur support numérique visant à valoriser la culture de la communauté des femmes gitanes d’Arles, à travers l’analyse du webdocumentaire Femmes gitanes du quai des platanes, mis en place par le Museon Arlaten (musée d’ethnographie d’Arles). Cette réflexion interroge la façon dont un musée met en place un dispositif numérique permettant de valoriser une culture en partant des initiatives de cette même communauté. Après une tentative de classement de ces types de dispositifs participatifs, l’étude de terrain proposée met en évidence un projet hybride entre les logiques top-down et bottom-up, au sein d’un dispositif participatif qui profite réellement aux participantes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".