Bibliographic record
Abstract
La réflexivité constitue une thématique à la mode, qui traduit à sa façon une évolution importante dans la façon de penser les pratiques sociales. Mais pour cette même raison, sa conception est encore instable, et les sens et usages dont elle est l’objet sont pour le moins multiples. Pour effectuer un travail de conception sur la notion de réflexivité, il faut d’abord montrer en quoi elle est objet d’une inflation normative la posant comme catégorie logique si attendue qu’une critique n’en est presque pas pensable. Or, cette aura très (trop) positive doit être dispersée pour qu’un travail théorique rigoureux puisse émerger. Le présent article propose de contribuer à une théorie de la réflexivité en décrivant l’aire de dispersion des usages de cette notion, distribués sur cinq plans logiques.
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 | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".