La recherche partenariale : point de vue de praticiens au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au cours des deux dernières décennies, la recherche partenariale connaît un essor important. Un essor associé à plusieurs facteurs dont le nouvel engouement manifesté par des chercheurs pour cette stratégie de recherche, le fait que nous observons une augmentation des demandes pour des activités de recherche provenant des milieux de la pratique ou encore en raison de l’importance que lui accordent les organismes subventionnaires. Dans le cadre de cet article, nous allons examiner ce mode de recherche à partir du point de vue des praticiens qui ont participé à des recherches partenariales au sein du Réseau québécois de recherche partenariale en économie sociale (RQRP-ÉS). L’analyse des entrevues réalisées auprès de praticiens nous révèlera les raisons de leur participation, les activités auxquelles ils ont pris part et les conditions identifiées par les praticiens pour assurer le bon déroulement d’une recherche partenariale.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
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".