Parsons et Gurvitch : exigence de totalité et réciprocité de perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En dépit de l'antagonisme de Gurvitch à l'égard de Parsons, ces deux auteurs ont des points communs qui les ont d'ailleurs exposés à des critiques semblables. Leur ambition théorique était la construction d'une macrothéorie dépourvue de tout monisme causal. Leur stratégie d'analyse se fondait sur la référence à la totalité, s'établissant chez Gurvitch sur la notion de phénomène social total, chez Parsons sur le concept de système social. À l'opposé de Gurvitch, Parsons accepte la modélisation comme procédé de réduction de complexité. Cela fait toute la différence entre les "paliers en profondeur" gurvitchiens et le schéma ÁGIL de Parsons, encore que des correspondances existent entre ces deux instruments analytiques. Pour Gurvitch, la mise en réciprocité de perspectives est un procédé de dialectisation conduisant à des corrélations fonctionnelles. Le schéma ÁGIL peut être considéré comme un instrument commode de mise en réciprocité de perspectives.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".