Entre pragmatique et créativité, la constitution des imaginaires au sein de projets de territoire participatifs : une ethnographie du projet le « Grand Huit » issu de l’initiative « Mons 2015, capitale européenne de la culture »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For two and a half years, Joanne Jojczyk followed eight groups of inhabitants, associations and artists in the conception of a festive and artistic event on their territory. Through a filmed ethnographic methodology, she studied the way these "designers" (citizens, artists, associations) built these eight projects with the help of a cultural mediation team. The main theoretical and analytical focusses on the interactions that shape the project over time. The work of the Montreal school and the communicative approaches that constitute the organisation (CCO Approach)is the theoretical framework of the thesis. Through three case studies, Joanne Jojczyk interrogates the concepts of participation, project and imagination. The conclusions of the thesis show how the weaving of the project takes place over time through both creative and pragmatic movements during interactions. Finally, the thesis sheds light on the concept of 'shift'(décalage in french) in the cultural sector but also more globally in project management.
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 | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".