Bibliographic record
Abstract
La sociologie historique comparative ne s’est jamais institutionnalisée de façon convaincante en matière d’études québécoises. Les spécialistes des études québécoises ont pourtant, de tout temps, eu recours à la comparaison pour tenter de mieux comprendre le Québec. Mis à part Gérard Bouchard, peu de spécialistes ont théorisé la méthode comparative. L’oeuvre de Gérard Bouchard sur les collectivités neuves pose cependant, sur le plan épistémologique, des problèmes importants. Le premier est qu’il soutient la transculturalité des concepts ; le deuxième qu’il postule de l’universalité des pratiques sociales ; le dernier porte sur la scientificité de l’analyse comparative positive. Bien utilisée cependant, l’analyse comparative comme méthode critique constitue un formidable outil scientifique d’objectivisation des résultats. La méthode comparative est également très efficace pour critiquer et améliorer les théories à prétention universelle.
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 | 0.100 | 0.273 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 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".