Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contexte : L'introduction à la recherche qualitative est souvent complexe et déconcertante pour le néophyte, particulièrement dans le milieu médical où la recherche quantitative domine largement. L'auteur témoigne de cette confrontation d'idées à travers un dialogue épistémologique imaginaire. But : Présenter de façon pédagogique et ludique la pertinence et la légitimité de la recherche qualitative. Méthode : Débat épistémologique prenant la forme d'un dialogue fictif entre un médecin et une anthropologue. Résultats : Les principaux arguments et critiques attachés à la recherche qualitative sont présentés et argumentés. Conclusion : Cet essai se veut un outil pédagogique utile et pertinent pour introduire aux lecteurs les grands concepts sous-tendant la recherche qualitative. La forme simple et ludique s'adresse autant au néophyte qu'au chercheur plus expérimenté.
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 | 0.036 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".