Métier de sociologue, approche inductive et objet d'analyse. Brèves remarques à partir de Bourdieu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article seeks to reveal the role played by the inductive approach in sociology. Grounded Theory assumes its full importance in formulating sociological explanations. However, the theory does pose a problem, in that the "method" is not based on clearly defined operations, which remain implicit. This article attempts to show that the object of analysis-what is being analyzed-makes perceptible the operations implicitly conceived by the analyst, based on Grounded Theory. With qualitative analysis software, such as Atlas.ti, it is possible to shed light on these operations. The article is illustrated by the theory of Pierre Bourdieu and the epistemological considerations he developed as a result of his qualitative inquiry, La Misère du monde. Cet article cherche à montrer le rôle que joue l'approche inductive en sociologie. La Grounded Theory revêt son importance pour formuler l'explication sociologique. Celle-ci pose toutefois problème. En effet, la «méthode» ne repose pas sur des opérations clairement définies et celles-ci restent implicites. Dans cet article, on cherche à montrer que l'objet d'analyse-ce sur quoi porte l'analyse-rend perceptibles les opérations que l'analyste conçoit implicitement en s'appuyant sur la Grounded Theory. Les logiciels d'analyse qualitative, comme Atlas.ti, permettent d'autre part de les mettre en évidence. L'article est illustré par la théorie de Pierre Bourdieu et les considérations épistémologiques qu'a développées cet auteur à la suite de son enquête qualitative sur la Misère du monde.
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 | 0.039 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".