L’interprétation sociologique de la subjectivité affective : les pratiques familiales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’opposition entre la rationalité et l’affectivité est l’une des propositions de sens commun les plus répandues. Depuis Tönnies, la sociologie n’a cessé de reprendre à son compte cette évidence sociale, nous proposant aujourd’hui l’idée d’une opposition quasi ontologique entre la rationalité des grands ensembles et l’affectivité de la quotidienneté. Cependant, la pertinence de la sociologie compréhensive ne s’est jamais autant manifestée que par sa capacité de proposer des interprétations rationnelles de pratiques qui semblaient justement si étrangères à la rationalité instrumentale. Comme ils l’ont fait pour la religion, les sociologues se doivent maintenant d’aborder dans une perspective rationnelle les significations et les comportements sociaux les plus manifestes et les plus actuels de la quotidienneté, à savoir les dimensions affectives de l’expérience sociale.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".