Universalisation et traditionalisation de la discipline sociologique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’intéresse à la fondation historique d’un champ disciplinaire national, c’est-à-dire au processus de traditionalisation scientifique. Plus spécifiquement, il cherche à mieux comprendre, et ce en la comparant sans cesse au développement de la sociologie du Canada anglophone, comment la sociologie du Québec francophone a progressivement créé un espace référentiel, méthodologique, théorique et politique, et comment celle-ci a cherché, surtout dans les années 1960 et 1970, à promouvoir une connaissance enracinée dans la réalité nationale. C’est ainsi que l’auteur est amené à souligner trois dimensions inhérentes à la constitution d’un champ sociologique national, soit la définition d’une société globale, l’écriture d’une histoire, ainsi que la formulation de méthodes et de théories spécifiques — marginalisant donc les dimensions idéologiques et institutionnelles invoquées par Harry H. Hiller dans ses travaux sur l’établissement des traditions sociologiques canadiennes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".