MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109374414 · doi:10.7202/602467ar

Analyses qualitatives et quantitatives : deux visions, une même science

2009· article· fr· W2109374414 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles perspectives en sciences sociales · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article suggère que, malgré bon nombre de plaidoiries qui affirment que les méthodes qualitatives et quantitatives sont antinomiques, ces deux types de méthode ont beaucoup en partage et ils sont tous les deux soumis aux mêmes exigences de scientificité. Non seulement jouent-ils des rôles complémentaires dans les sciences humaines, mais, en plus, 1) leurs analyses doivent toujours avoir quelque représentativité, 2) leurs résultats doivent pouvoir caractériser un ensemble étudié, 3) les caractérisations doivent être modulées par les variations individuelles, 4) leurs analyses doivent établir des liens entre les objets/sujets étudiés, et 5) ces analyses sont soumises à la tension qui s’impose entre l’obligation de regrouper les données et celle d’en respecter les particularités.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.011
Science and technology studies0.0070.039
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.351 · 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