Étudier une innovation en cours de diffusion : le parcours de recherche d’un acteur embarqué dans les réseaux des handi-escalades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on research carried out in the various networks of players offering adapted climbing practices for people with disabilities, this article describes the transformations experienced by the researcher during a site survey based on an ethnosociological approach. While the theoretical framework of the sociology of innovation has enabled us to highlight the state of diffusion and stabilization of a social innovation process, the posture of the actor involved, inscribed in the long term, has led us to question the author’s relationship to an object that brings together personal sporting practice, professional involvement and the scientific approach. The sometimes intimate relationship between the insider and the field initially facilitated access to data, before requiring a reflexive step back, in which the logbook plays a central role. By recognizing that they themselves are actors in the network under study, researchers engaged in observational participation are led to accept a personal transformation that gradually reorients the research object itself.
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 | 0.047 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".