Une recherche collaborative en contexte d’entreprise d’insertion : de l’idéal au possible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article rapporte une expérience de recherche collaborative ayant pour ambition initiale l’analyse critique et la transformation des pratiques professionnelles d’intervenants d’une entreprise d’insertion par l’économie. D’abord, les assises épistémologiques de ce type de recherche sont posées ainsi que les considérations théoriques et méthodologiques qui ont guidé la présente recherche. Ensuite, est proposée une analyse de l’évolution de ce projet et plus particulièrement de l’écart étonnant qui s’est progressivement créé entre les intentions initiales de cette recherche (le projet idéalisé) et celle qui a vraiment eu lieu (le projet réel). Si plusieurs écrits scientifiques des dernières années révèlent la spécificité et la pertinence des recherches-action, peu d’entre eux portent leur attention sur les difficultés, les surprises, les compromis et les réajustements constants qui interviennent en cours de processus. Cet article se veut une contribution en ce sens.
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 | 0.061 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".