MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740443520 · doi:10.7202/1034890ar

Recherche-action, ou connaissance pour l’action ? Quelques points de repère et trois positions de principe

2016· article· fr· W2740443520 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Il existe diverses manières de relier la recherche et l’action. On doit à ce propos poser au moins deux questions : Il faut commencer par envisager les allégeances du chercheur en vue de déterminer à quelles conditions les intérêts et les préoccupations du chercheur ne porteront pas préjudice à ceux qui ont affaire à lui. Il faut ensuite que s’établisse un rapport contractuel entre le chercheur et les gens auprès desquels est menée une recherche-action et que ces derniers puissent exercer un contrôle démocratique sur le déroulement de la recherche. Action et recherche peuvent-elles fusionner ? Que devient alors le savoir ? Sans la constitution d’un savoir disposant d’une relative autonomie par rapport à chaque situation particulière, on se prive des armes de la critique que sont la raison et l’expérience. Ce sont là les repères contre l’arbitraire de la recherche et du chercheur.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.692
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.106 · 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