Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bien que la métathéorie soit souvent rejetée par les chercheurs au profit de leurs travaux théoriques et empiriques, cet article tient à évaluer ses implications et sa pertinence. Prenant les travaux d’Alexander Wendt comme champ d’analyse, il avance que les différents niveaux d’abstraction – théorique et métathéorique – ne sont pas indépendants les uns des autres. Que Wendt soutienne qu’une partie de la réalité internationale est intersubjective tout en réifiant l’État est théoriquement insatisfaisant et semble être le résultat, à la fois d’une contradiction métathéorique entre deux conceptions ontologiques différentes (constructivisme et réalisme scientifique), ainsi que d’une contradiction entre ses fondements ontologiques et ses prétentions épistémologiques objectivistes. Bref, cet article suggère que la métathéorie constitue une étape importante du processus de recherche présente un intérêt qui lui est propre et mérite d’être étudiée.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".