La recherche dite « qualitative » :de la dynamique de son évolutionaux acquis indéniableset aux questionnements présents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article amorce une réflexion sur les acquis de la recherche dite « qualitative », acquis qui ne sont pas indépendants du contexte général qui a orienté le développement des sciences sociales et humaines. Plus particulièrement, il vise à montrer que les approches qualitatives ont consolidé leur dimension épistémologique et leur légitimité scientifique. Les choix méthodologiques de saisie des données et des modes d’interprétation et d’analyse se sont aussi stabilisés donnant à la communauté scientifique des points de repères solides. Ce bilan, nous amène à réfléchir sur ces acquis car les approches qualitatives, préoccupées de comprendre une pluralité de formes d’expression humaine (arts, danse, littérature, et autres formes esthétiques.), souffrent actuellement d’un éclatement des manières de faire la recherche et de légitimer la connaissance produite.
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 | 0.051 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".