L’ethnographie comme démarche compréhensive : immersion dans les dynamiques consommatoires du rap en France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initialement fondée sur des perspectives quantitativistes, la recherche en sciences de gestion compte un nombre croissant de démarches qualitatives, dont le fondement réside davantage dans la compréhension d’un phénomène que dans son explication. Parmi l’éventail de protocoles qualitatifs à disposition des chercheurs, l’ethnographie représente un outil pertinent tant dans une perspective de collecte que d’analyse des données. L’objectif de cet article est de proposer une présentation de la démarche ethnographique et de sa pertinence en sciences de gestion, plus particulièrement en marketing. À partir d’une recherche sur le mouvement rap français, cet article s’articule autour, d’une part, d’une présentation de l’ethnographie, de ses fondements et de ses principes, et, d’autre part, de son application dans le cadre d’une recherche en comportement du consommateur.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".