Donner priorité aux données : adopter l’induction au cours d’une recherche sur les relations publiques et le journalisme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article expose le parcours d’une équipe dont le projet de recherche s’est développé d’une manière inattendue. Amorcé dans une épistémologie positiviste et dans un paradigme hypothéticodéductif, le projet a dû être redéployé. Le design de recherche et les méthodes de collecte de données suscitaient plus de questions qu’ils n’apportaient de réponses. Posant un regard critique sur le processus, nous réalisons que les décisions jalonnant la démarche s’inscrivent dans une démarche inductive. L’article décrit l’évolution intuitive d’une recherche où les préconceptions de ce qu’est une excellente méthodologie sont chamboulées pour finalement reconnaître la valeur et le rôle des données en tant que guides pour l’exploration d’objets de recherche.
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 | 0.097 | 0.245 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".