La recherche-action ou aspects d’un débat plus large sur l’intellectuel et son rapport à l’action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir de son expérience de recherche l’auteur s’interroge sur les rapports entre savoir et action. Dans ce contexte la recherche-action doit être considérée comme une forme d’engagement du chercheur qui ne va pas sans soulever un certain nombre de difficultés. Si le chercheur doit alors assumer de nouveaux rôles et fonctions par rapport aux groupes avec lesquels il se lie, il demeure néanmoins inscrit à l’intérieur d’un système scientifique dont il dépend. La communauté scientifique impose des règles strictes et l’implication sociale comporte ses exigences particulières. Dans le cadre de la recherche-action le chercheur doit donc se situer à la fois par rapport aux acteurs officiels, ceux qui commanditent le projet, et par rapport aux acteurs qui constituent, sur le terrain, le véritable objet de la recherche. Le défi de la recherche-action est de gérer cette double allégeance.
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 | 0.024 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".