Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trois principaux arguments sont avancés en réponse aux textes critiques qui précèdent. Premièrement, loin de réfuter l’importance de la réflexivité, la logique du praticable en souligne les ressorts inarticulés. Même les tactiques diplomatiques les plus calculées reposent sur des savoir-faire incarnés qui, s’ils font rarement l’objet de discussions, n’en produisent pas moins des effets structurants. Deuxièmement, expliquer le changement et les événements extraordinaires forme un défi qui n’est pas hors de la portée analytique de la logique du praticable. Au contraire, les écarts de conduite et les transformations du sens commun découlent de la nature contingente et multiple de la logique du praticable. Troisièmement, le tournant pratique en ri s’inscrit dans le prolongement, et non à l’encontre, du tournant linguistique et de l’interprétivisme. Au final, mettre la logique du praticable à l’avant-plan, c’est diriger l’analyse sur les ressorts de l’inégalité et de la domination sociales, dans le prolongement de la sociologie politique de Pierre Bourdieu.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".