Des champs et des clôtures: la métaphore et la recherche interdisciplinaire (On Fields and Frontiers: Metaphor and Interdisciplinary Research)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Dans ce chapitre, nous faisons etat du recours frequent a la metaphore de la territorialite pour decrire la recherche interdisciplinaire. Les disciplines sont regulierement concues comme des champs separes par des frontieres dont la transgression caracterise le travail interdisciplinaire.Nous poursuivons la reflexion en proposant que l'utilisation que l'on fait de la metaphore comme outil pour generer des hypotheses dans des champs distincts caracterise egalement le projet interdisciplinaire. La metaphore propose une relation de similitude et le modele tente de systematiser de multiples similitudes en isomorphismes. Les chercheurs interdisciplinaires procedent de la meme facon en proposant des similitudes entre champs d'apparence eloignes.English Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of the pervasive use of the metaphor of territoriality to describe interdisciplinary research. Disciplines are regularly imagined as that have frontiers that are both transgressed and reinforced by interdisciplinary research.The chapter goes on to explore how insights into how metaphors are used as methodological tools for hypothesis generation in multiple fields are also applicable to the interdisciplinary endeavour. Just as a metaphor proposes a relationship of similarity and a model systematizes multiple similarities into proposed isomorphisms, so do interdisciplinary researchers propose similarities between apparently unrelated fields.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".