MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066876060 · doi:10.7202/006772ar

La méthode qualitative en Amérique du Nord : un débat manqué (1918-1960)

2008· article· fr· W2066876060 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Álvaro P. Pires

Bibliographic record

VenueSociologie et sociétés · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article propose une réflexion sur les causes de l'abandon de la méthodologie qualitative dans la sociologie nord-américaine. La période historique se situant entre 1918 et 1950 est privilégiée. Par le biais de cette analyse historique, ce texte entend, entre autres, contribuer — que ce soit indirectement — à offrir des bases différentes au débat actuel. En effet, il attire l'attention sur le fait qu'un véritable débat méthodologique entre l'approche qualitative et quantitative commence à peine à être entamé.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.430
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.111 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociologie et sociétésSame topicData Analysis and ArchivingFrench-language works237,207