Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alors que des tensions sociétales majeures affectent le tissu social, la portée de l’animation de groupe est immense car elle peut transformer, faire dévier ou renforcer des comportements, des opinions et des manières de penser. Organisant la communication par une scénarisation préalable, l’animation peut soit imposer ses objectifs en toute transparence ou les dissimuler derrière des masques de la vertu, soit passer son pouvoir d’influence aux individus afin qu’ils déterminent par le dialogue un sens commun qui est leur bien social le plus précieux. En s’éloignant d’une approche intersubjective, l’espace d’animation s’est rétréci puisque de nombreux citoyens refusent de participer à des activités conçues pour eux et non avec eux. Si seuls des processus dialogiques peuvent faire croitre une distanciation réflexive et une pensée critique, comment une revue consacrée à ce thème peut-elle les appliquer dans son animation d’une communauté de recherche et de pratique ?
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.005 |
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".