Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce petit essai, né d’irritations et de dilemmes rencontrés au cours d’une expérience d’enquête, constitue un dialogue fictif avec des positions typiques construites à partir de rencontres avec des chercheurs et des policiers. Engageant un triple dialogue avec Max Weber, mes collègues sociologues et des policiers rencontrés dans le cadre de mes recherches en Allemagne, j’insiste sur la conception wébérienne des motifs qui sous-tendent l’action, et qui sont au coeur de l’enquête. J’y distingue trois paires de concepts : l’individu fictif et l’individu « en chair et en os », les motifs et le vouloir, les conséquences de l’action et le destin individuel. Si j’insiste sur la notion de motif, entendu au sens de Weber, c’est pour plaider pour une approche (et une technique) qui tiendrait compte de l’action sociale, pour souligner la tâche d’interprétation qu’une telle approche sous-tend, et pour questionner à nouveau le rapport aux valeurs du chercheur à son objet.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".