Le co-design de technologies de eSanté : Un enchevêtrement de conversations, de tensions créatrices et d’inscriptions circulantes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de cet article est d’examiner les processus de communication qui sont au cœur du design de technologies de eSanté. Pour ce faire, nous prendrons appui sur un projet de design d’une plateforme de eSanté pour et avec les personnes vivant avec la maladie de Parkinson. À travers la présentation de « vignettes » décrivant certaines étapes du processus de design participatif (ou co-design), nous montrerons en quoi la communication est constitutive du design d’une technologie de eSanté. Nous porterons alors notre attention sur trois éléments : (a) la réduction de l’équivocité inhérente à la situation de conception et le processus de sensemaking ; (b) l’émergence de tensions créatrices ancrées dans l’expression de la multiplicité des points de vue ; (c) la production de multiples artéfacts traduisant des valeurs dans le design.
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 | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".