Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le choix de la méthode à l’origine d’une enquête internationale n’est pas qu’une question d’ordre technique ou scientifique mais a des implications politiques majeures. Dans une perspective de sociologie qualitative de l’action publique, cet article analyse les fonctions politiques remplies par la méthode au fondement du programme PISA de l’OCDE entre 1995 et 2008 à travers l’expérience particulière de la France. L’article met en évidence que les fonctions politiques remplies par la méthode diffèrent selon les étapes de l’instrumentation de l’action publique. Lors de la conception de l’enquête, la méthode constitue un outil puissant de problématisation de l’action publique. Lors de sa mise en oeuvre, elle remplit une fonction de contrôle social. La réception de PISA en France enfin montre que la méthode a un pouvoir très important de structuration du débat public dans la mesure où elle prédétermine fortement les usages politiques et cognitifs qui peuvent en être faits.
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 | 0.176 | 0.229 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.006 |
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".