MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748459244 · doi:10.7202/1034877ar

L’ambiguïté des universitaires face à la recherche-action

2016· article· fr· W2748459244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pierre Dominicé

Bibliographic record

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

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quelle est la pertinence de la recherche-action ? Ne sert-elle pas d’analyseur des résistances de toute organisation syndicale ou politique à remettre en question son programme de lutte ? Sur la base d’expériences de formation et de recherche récentes, l’auteur signale qu’il n’est pas suffisant de privilégier un terrain d’intervention en raison d’options idéologiques ou politiques, comme la formation syndicale ou un mouvement social, pour qu’une recherche réelle se mette en place. Toute démarche de recherche requiert une implication énorme des chercheurs mobilisés, ce qui ralentit le processus de recherche et entraîne une dilution des résultats. Le groupe demandeur devient le principal interlocuteur de la démarche, juge de sa qualité et de sa pertinence. C’est à partir d’un lieu universitaire concret de formation des adultes que s’exprime l’auteur.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.751
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207