Recherche partenariale et mise en circulation des connaissances : Retour sur un stage de maîtrise portant sur la découverte de contenus culturels au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet essai fait le bilan d’un stage réalisé à la Chaire Fernand-Dumont sur la culture de l’Institut \nNational de la Recherche Scientifique dans le cadre d’un projet de recherche qualitative sur la \ndécouverte de contenus culturels au Québec mené en partenariat avec l’Observatoire de la Culture \net des Communications du Québec et le Ministère de la Culture et des Communications du Québec. \nL’essai décrit ce projet de recherche partenariale ainsi que les activités de stage réalisées par \nl’auteure, dresse un bilan critique de cette expérience de recherche et de mise en circulation des \nconnaissances, et propose des réflexions concernant les concepts de la circulation des \nconnaissances et le rôle et travail d’agent·e d’interface. Cet essai propose notamment, comme \ncontributions à la littérature scientifique, des réflexions méthodologiques concernant la distinction \nentre des analyses sociologiques sectorielles, multisectorielles et transversales, ainsi qu’une \nproposition classificatoire distinguant les illustrations mnémotechniques de synthèse et les \nillustrations explicatives. Y est également présentée une approche critique concernant les concepts \nde mobilisation, transfert, diffusion et vulgarisation des connaissances, et la proposition de resituer \nces derniers dans le thème plus large de la circulation des connaissances. Enfin, des réflexions \nconceptuelles à propos du rôle d’agent·e d’interface ou de transfert des connaissances représentent \nune ultérieure contribution de cet essai à la littérature scientifique concernant les pratiques de mise \nen circulation des connaissances. \n \nThis essay presents reflections on an internship at the Institut National de la Recherche \nScientifique’s Fernand-Dumont Chair on Culture. The internship was led as part of a qualitative \nresearch project about the discovery of cultural content in Quebec that was conducted by the Chair \nin partnership with the Observatoire de la Culture et des Communications du Québec and the \nMinistère de la Culture et des Communications du Québec. The essay describes this research \npartnership project as well as the internship activities carried out by the intern, draws up a critical \nassessment of this research and knowledge circulation experience, and proposes reflections on the \nconcepts of knowledge circulation and on the role and work of interface agents. This essay proposes, \nas scientific contributions, methodological reflections concerning the distinction between sectoral, \nmultisectoral, and transversal sociological analyses, as well as a classification distinguishing \nsummarizing mnemonic illustrations and explanatory illustrations. It also critically analyzes the \nconcepts of knowledge mobilization, transfer, dissemination and popularization, and proposes to \nresituate these concepts in the broader theme of “knowledge circulation”. Finally, conceptual \nreflections on the role of the “interface” or “knowledge transfer” agent represent a further \ncontribution of this essay to the scientific literature on knowledge circulation practices.
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 | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".