MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272830110 · doi:10.4000/communication.6090

Jason LUCKERHOFF et François GUILLEMETTE (2012), Méthodologie de la théorisation enracinée. Fondements, procédures et usages

2015· article· fr· W2272830110 on OpenAlexaffvenue
François R. Derbas Thibodeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtLegitimationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

De houleux débats animent la communauté scientifique autour de la légitimation des méthodes inductives. S’y engageant, Jason Luckerhoff et François Guillemette ont mobilisé une équipe multidisciplinaire de collaborateurs qui, d’une part, abordent les fondements, les procédures ainsi que les usages de cette tradition méthodologique de la théorisation enracinée (MTE). D’autre part, la mise en œuvre de la MTE est illustrée par la référence à des projets de recherche, notamment en communication s...

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.018
Scholarly communication0.0080.016
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.527
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.029 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunicationSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207