Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notre hypothèse de départ dans cette étude était que les résultats d’une recherche développée en partenariat seraient plus adaptés aux besoins des divers acteurs impliqués que ceux découlant d’une recherche plus « classique » et qu’il en résulterait nécessairement des retombées plus nombreuses dans les milieux des partenaires impliqués. Au terme de notre analyse, nous constatons que l’hypothèse initiale n’a pu être confirmée que partiellement. Le modèle de la Traduction développé par Callon et al. (2001), permet de cerner les limites de cette approche dans le contexte étudié. Ce qui semble avoir invalidé notre hypothèse de départ tient en partie aux « mesures de précaution » mises en œuvre par les partenaires lors de la mise à l’épreuve des connaissances nouvelles mais aussi le retour aux anciens modes de fonctionnement entre intervenants et chercheurs. From mobilization of knowledge to partnership research. The example of « Portrait des jeunes du quartier Bordeaux-Cartierville » in Montreal, QcOur initial hypothesis was that results from a research study developed in partnership would be better adapted to the needs of the various participants than results from a more « classic » research method. The former would also lead to more spin-offs in the fields of the partners involved. During our analysis, however, it became clear that the initial hypothesis could only be partially confirmed. The Translation Model, developed by Callon et al. (2001) allows us to determine the limits of this approach within the context under study. Our initial hypothesis seems to have been invalidated in part by « precautionary measures » set up by partners when new knowledge is put to the test, and also by the return to earlier modes of operation between stakeholders and researchers. De la puesta en práctica del conocimiento en la colaboración dentro de la investigación: el caso del « Retrato de los jóvenes del barrio Bordeaux-Cartierville » en MontréalNuestra hipótesis de partida en este trabajo era que los resultados de una investigación desarrollada en colaboración podrían estar más adaptadas a las necesidades de los diversos agentes implicados que durante una encuesta clásica y que los datos obtenidos serían más numerosos cuando las encuestas se efectúan en colaboración. Pero esta hipótesis solo ha podido ser confirmada de manera parcial. El modelo de la Traducción desarrollado por Callon et al. (2001) permite vislumbrar los límites de esta aproximación en este contexto. Lo que parece que haya invalidado nuestra hipótesis es que las « medidas de precaución » aplicadas por los diferentes colaboradores en el momento en que los nuevos conocimientos son aplicados han sido contraproductivas y también la tendencia a utilizar los antiguos modos de funcionamiento entre los agentes y los investigadores que colaboraban juntos.
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 | 0.048 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".