Bibliographic record
Abstract
English This article considers the reflexivity that arises from the “individualization of social life,” which is the result of changes in current societies and which, for example, forces sociology to consider its purpose at a new cost. How exactly is individuality to be defined from this perspective? What status is to be conferred on the statements of individuals who are operating in such a framework? Having defined precisely to what reflexivity corresponds, the author seeks to qualify the theses currently held on this topic, as illustrated by the theories of P. Bourdieu and A. Giddens, which provide an opportunity to conceive of common sense as practical knowledge and individuality as the mediation required to attain the social. The reflexivity of sociology is finally addressed in order to show that today, sociological knowledge fuels the practical knowledge that individuals mobilize to make sense, at their own level, of what they are and what they do. French Cet article envisage la réflexivité surgie de l “individualisation de la vie sociale” née des mutations des sociétés actuelles et qui, par exemple, oblige la sociologie à concevoir son objet à nouveaux frais. Comment définir exactement l’individualité dans cette perspective? Quel statut conférer aux propos des individus qui évoluent dans ce cadre? Après avoir cerné ce à quoi correspond exactement la réflexivité, l’auteur cherche à nuancer les thèses en vogue sur le sujet en prenant pour illustration les théories de P. Bourdieu et d’A. Giddens qui lui permettent de concevoir le sens commun comme connaissance pratique et l’individualité comme médiation obligée pour atteindre le social. La réflexivité de la sociologie est finalement abordée afin de montrer que, de nos jours, la connaissance sociologique alimente la connaissance pratique que mobilisent les individus pour, à leur niveau, rendre raison de ce qu’ils sont et de ce qu’ils font.
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 | 0.027 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".