Sociologie culturelle ou sociologie de la culture ? Un programme fort pour donner à la sociologie son second souffle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La sociologie de la culture et la sociologie culturelle ont plusieurs points en commun : un répertoire de concepts (valeurs, codes, discours), l'importance donnée à la culture dans la société. Mais l'une et l'autre approches s'opposent comme, en sociologie de la science, s'opposent le « programme faible » et le « programme fort » (à la Bloor). Nous entendons proposer pour l'étude de la culture un « programme fort ». Notre démarche se fera en trois étapes : d'abord un bref survol de l'histoire de la théorie sociale, ensuite une critique de trois approches qui ont été populaires pour l'analyse de la culture (Paul Willis et l'école de Birminghan, Pierre Bourdieu et Michel Foucault), et enfin une esquisse de « programme fort » qui se construirait autour des trois axiomes suivants : textualité de la vie sociale, autonomie des formes culturelles et repérage des mécanismes culturels concrets. Le passage d'une sociologie de la culture à une sociologie culturelle apparaît comme une condition de renouvellement de la sociologie et une façon de lui donner un « second souffle ».
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".