Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article revient sur une recherche partenariale réalisée entre 2019 et 2021 à Montréal-Nord. Il propose un éclairage pratique sur les enjeux qui surgissent au cours de la production de recherches collaboratives en contexte de fortes asymétries entre les partenaires, et présente les moyens concrets qui ont été mobilisés pour y répondre. La méthodologie déployée dans le cadre de cette étude de cas s’est organisée autour d’outils de collaboration qui ont permis d’identifier, puis de répondre, aux enjeux de la distribution des ressources matérielles et symboliques entre les partenaires. Ce travail collaboratif s’est construit autour des intérêts individuels des personnes participantes et de leurs différences, et a été rendu possible par la mobilisation de compétences de traduction et de care tissées dans les interstices de la recherche.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".