Favoriser la justice cognitive par la recherche collaborative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une part importante de la pratique de la démocratie est la possibilité d’une confrontation des différents cadres d’interprétation de la réalité. Si l’on considère souhaitable une pratique démocratique de l’intervention sociale, il importe de laisser place à l’expression de cette pluralité en reconnaissant et en facilitant l’expression des savoirs professionnels, expérientiels et académiques grâce aux dispositifs de la recherche collaborative. À l’aune d’expériences concrètes de recherche collaborative menées ces dernières années au sein du Centre de Recherche de Bruxelles sur les Inégalités Sociales (CREBIS), nous proposons une réflexion qui porte à la fois sur la façon dont nous, chercheurs, pouvons soutenir l’expression et la formalisation des savoirs professionnels et expérientiels, mais aussi, paradoxalement, sur la façon dont notre intervention peut également contribuer à les minorer, voire à les instrumentaliser.
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 | 0.069 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.126 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".