Що вивчають соціальні науки: інститути чи інституції?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article deals with the concept of social studies, which are subject to ongoing debate. In the tradition of Western scholars, this scientific concept is referred to as „institutions". In the post-Soviet space, in particular, in Ukraine, there are two terms: „institutes" and „institutions". In the first case, the polemic focuses on what aspects of institutions and their functioning should be studied to acquire essential knowledge for developing and adopting effective management decisions that contribute to improving the situation in all spheres of social relations and social behaviour. After all, institutions are decisive structural components and regulators of society's functioning as a system. In the second case, the debate also focuses on how to adapt the term „institutes" to the conceptual framework of institutional economic, political and other social studies. The origins of this debate trace back to the Soviet Union era. Then, as we know, the vectors of scientific research were determined from Moscow. Russian translations of the research results from Western scholars were carried out there and distributed from there. Sometimes there were situations of incorrect translations and inadequate interpretations. This is how the term-concept „institutions" was split into two: „institutions" and „institutes", and in favour of the latter. This happened contrary to the terminological tradition of institutional studies initiated in the West in the last quarter of the 1800s. Since the early 1990s, updated paradigms of institutionalism have become one of the main instruments of social cognition for many scholars worldwide, including Ukrainian ones. In order to effectively apply this instrument to study, forecasting and modelling probable and desirable social changes in one's own and other countries, it is necessary to align the terms and concepts of the national scientific discourse with the relevant thesaurus of institutional studies in the countries where these studies began and continue to be leading. In this case, it will be necessary to acknowledge the fact that the object and subject of the latter are phenomena known as „institutions" rather than „institutes". Of course, there is a connection between these two terms and concepts. However, it is neither object-subject nor conceptual; it is infrastructural. Institutes are organizations where scholars investigate theoretical and applied aspects of the formation and functioning of social institutions. And those who study at institutes study the results of institutional research and have the opportunity to participate in such research. In short: institutions are studied in institutes. The first part of the article discusses the genesis of the terms and concepts of „institutions" and „institutes" in the scientific discourse in Ukraine. The second part is about the interpretation of these terms and concepts in the West. Comparing the two discourses and their histories has provided arguments for the conclusion about the necessity of harmonising the former with the second. Perhaps this proposal will require a targeted discussion.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».