MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151950515 · doi:10.7202/502011ar

La recherche théorique en sciences humaines : réflexions sur la validité d’énoncés théoriques en éducation

2008· article· fr· W2151950515 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christiane Gohier

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l éducation · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Strategies and Epistemologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La recherche théorique en éducation, et plus largement en sciences humaines, ne répond pas aux mêmes critères de scientificité ou d'admissibilité que la recherche empirique. À travers l'examen de la critériologie scientifique issue des sciences exactes et de celle propre aux sciences humaines, d'une part, ainsi que l'analyse de la spécificité de la recherche théorique, d'autre part, une série de critères est proposée afin de juger de la recevabilité et de la « validité » d'énoncés théoriques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.274
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.399
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2740.399
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.078
Scholarly communication0.0290.037
Open science0.0060.014
Research integrity0.0060.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.724
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences de l éducationSame topicEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesFrench-language works237,207