Méthode anthropo-sociologique introduisant le théâtre forum comme outil d'analyse d'une recherche scientifique pluridisciplinaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il s’agit dans cet article de proposer une méthode innovante introduisant le Théâtre Forum comme outil pour faire émerger les perceptions que les populations ont de l’environnement. Cette proposition s’appuie sur des travaux de recherche portant sur l’analyse des perceptions de la poussière et de son impact sur la santé à Ouagadougou au Burkina-Faso. Nous analyserons en quoi cette méthode peut trouver sa pertinence dans le cadre d’un projet de recherche pluridisciplinaire. Après une présentation de ce qu’est le Théâtre Forum, nous mettrons en évidence comment une méthodologie socio-anthropologique peut utiliser cet outil, tout en mettant en évidence les intérêts et les limites que nous illustrons par la thématique de la poussière et de ses perceptions par les Ouagalais.
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 | 0.137 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".