Effets formatifs du spectacle-recherche sur les tuteurs et tutrices du master Bien-être dans les organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment faire coexister pédagogie, recherche, partage de la science à visée émancipatrice? C’est l’expérimentation du spectacle-recherche (SR), un outil de production artistique collective pour participer à la communication de résultats de recherche. S’il est utilisé comme dispositif pédagogique pour mobiliser les concepts abordés dans le master Bien-être dans les organisations, peut-il aussi être considéré comme un outil de développement de compétences des tuteurs et tutrices? Car eux aussi interrogent la notion de SR, se mettent en scène et mobilisent des compétences psychosociales et transformatives. Nous interrogeons leur perception des compétences de créativité, de communication et de collaboration possiblement développées dans cet exercice, de la transposabilité de ces compétences et de la capacité de médiation offerte par ce dispositif pédagogique en cherchant à identifier des tendances.
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 | 0.040 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".