De la communauté à la parenté du vivant : pour des bibliothèques attentives sur des territoires en transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article explore le potentiel de l’éthique du care comme cadre pour repenser la relation des bibliothèques à leurs communautés, particulièrement dans un contexte de transition écologique et sociale. Bien que cette approche, fondée sur l’écoute, l’attention et la prise en compte des vulnérabilités, soit encore marginale dans les pratiques bibliothéconomiques, elle offre des perspectives pertinentes face aux défis contemporains. En mobilisant les apports de l’écosophie — philosophie des relations centrée sur l’écologie — et en s’appuyant sur des travaux inter et transdisciplinaires, les auteurs analysent comment ces concepts peuvent enrichir les services des bibliothèques. L’étude s’ancre principalement dans le contexte français, à partir d’enquêtes de terrain et de l’exemple du projet ECODOC, qui interroge la circulation des savoirs dans des territoires en transition. Ce travail vise à éclairer les transformations en cours et à venir dans les bibliothèques, tout en soulignant les enjeux éthiques et politiques de ces évolutions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".