Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 147, 2022
SCAN’22 - 10e Séminaire de Conception Architecturale Numérique
Article Number 02004
Number of page(s) 13
Section Collaboration
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202214702004
Published online 12 October 2022
  1. P. Trompette and D. Vinck, Retour sur la notion d’objet-frontière. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 3(1), 5–27 (2009). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. O. Barge. Les reconstitutions 3D pour un dialogue entre archéologues ?, ArchéOrient- Le Blog (Hypotheses.org) (2013) http://archeorient.hypotheses.org/652 [Google Scholar]
  3. B. Mericskay. La géovisualisation de données massives sur le Web: entre avancées technologiques et évolutions cartographiques. Mappemonde. Revue trimestrielle sur l’image géographique et les formes du territoire (2021) https://doi.org/10.4000/mappemonde.5595 [Google Scholar]
  4. V. Jaillot, V. Rigolle, S. Servigne, J.S. Samuel, G. Gesquière. Integrating multimedia documents and time-evolving 3D city models for web visualization and navigation. Transactions in GIS 25, 1419–1438 (2021) DOI: 10.1111/tgis.12734 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dervin, B. and L. Foreman-Wernet. Sense-making methodology as an approach to understanding and designing for campaign audiences. Public Communication Campaigns. 4th ed: SAGE, 147–161 (2012) [Google Scholar]
  6. Weick, K. E. Organized sensemaking: A commentary on processes of interpretive work. Human relations, 65(1), 141–153 (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. S. L. Star, J. R. Griesemer, Institutional ecology,translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies of science, 19(3), 387–420 (1989) [Google Scholar]
  8. S. L. Star, Ceci n’est pas un objet-frontière ! Réflexions sur l’origine d’un concept. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 4(4-1) (2010) [Google Scholar]
  9. D. Jacobi, Les Musées sont-ils condamnés à séduire? et autres écrits muséologiques (Chapitre 4, Paris, MkF Éditions, 2017) [Google Scholar]
  10. T. Ingold, Faire—Anthropologie, Archéologie, Art et Architecture (DEHORS, 2017) [Google Scholar]
  11. J.-P. Treuil, A. Drogoul and J.D. Zucker. Modélisation et simulation à base d’agents: exemples commentés, outils informatiques et questions théoriques (Dunod, 2008) [Google Scholar]
  12. P. Taillandier, B. Gaudou, A. Grignard, Q. N. Huyn, N. Marilleau, P. Caillou and A. Drogoul. Building, composing and experimenting complex spatial models with the GAMA platform. GeoInformatica, 23(2), 299–322 (2019) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. L. Alonso et al. Cityscope: a data-driven interactive simulation tool for urban design. Use case volpe. International conference on complex systems. Springer, Cham (2018). [Google Scholar]
  14. H. Ishii and B. Ullmer. Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 234–241 (1997) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. E. Ben-Joseph et al. Urban simulation and the luminous planning table: Bridging the gap between the digital and the tangible. Journal of planning Education and Research 21.2: 196–203 (2001) [Google Scholar]
  16. K. Snyder. Tools for community design and decision-making. Planning support systems in practice. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 99–120 (2003) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. A. Beayert-Geslin. L’image ressassée. Photo de presse et photo d’art. Communication & Langages, 147, 119–135 (2006) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.