Approches méthodologiques et objets d’induction organisationnels : la pertinence d’une stratégie de recherche multiétagée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le but de cette contribution est de clarifier la correspondance entre les approches méthodologiques inductives d’une part et les approches théoriques interprétatives d’autre part en procédant à une démarche d’analyse conceptuelle. Étant donné le lien postulé entre théorie et méthode dans l’approche inductive, notre objectif est de discuter de la pertinence des approches méthodologiques dans la compréhension des objets de recherche fondamentaux mis de l’avant par la conception interprétative et tout particulièrement par la théorie de l’équivalence. Nous décrivons les limites de la pertinence de ces approches méthodologiques face à la complexité de ces objets pour, en conclusion, proposer une démarche inductive, la stratégie de recherche multiétagée, que nous estimons adaptée à cette complexité théorique.
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 | 0.040 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".