La « logique du praticable » à l’épreuve de la pratique scientifique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article est une réflexion critique sur la« logique du praticable » de Vincent Pouliot quia contribué depuis dix ans à faire progresser lathéorie des Relations internationales. À partir de leurspropres travaux, les auteurs formulent trois questionnements relatifsà la « logique du praticable ».D’abord, ils s’interrogent sur l’enchâssementde la « logique du praticable » avec les logiquesréflexives dans la construction théorique de VincentPouliot. Ensuite, ils réfléchissent à sonopérationnalisation méthodologique. Enfin, ils examinentle statut des données empiriques et de leurs usages. Afind’assumer la rupture prônée par Vincent Pouliot, lesauteurs invitent à considérer plusieurs« logiques du praticable » et à se tournerdavantage encore vers la recherche ethnographique de terrain pourrenouveler la théorie des Relations internationales.
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 | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".