Créativité de l’agir et production artistique, un en-commun culturel : analyse des processus de fonctionnement dans les friches culturelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is artistic creativity productive of social innovation in the working of collectives ? In an attempt to answer this question, this study takes a sociological look at the cultural brownfield movement which, since the 1960s, in opposition to a so-called legitimate culture, has been considering the arts in their everyday and their relational function. An overview of the different figures of the cultural brownfield makes it possible to clarify the common characteristics, the evolutions as well as the uses, particularly in their mode of organization according to the social contexts. Here, the methodological approach is based on grounded theorisation (Glaser, Strauss, 1967 ; Paillé, 1994). The exploration of a cultural brownfield in its successive forms gave rise to a monograph whose analysis led to the choice of two other study sites, a third place and a cultural factory. A comparative analysis of the three singular cases brings to light two distinct narratives, that of a group whose creativity acts on its living environment and that of a group established around determined objectives. By following actors who engage in innovative forms of relationships seeking to share responsibilities, this study postulates that an intermediary dynamic (Méchoulan, 2003; Besson, 2014) of artistic production acts in a form of exchange (producer/receiver) of the gift/counter-gift type (Mauss), the breeding ground of an common approach (Nicolas-Le Strat, 2016), which is both a source and a product of the group's governance (Ostrom, 1990; Dardot, Laval 2015).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".