Réflexivité et recherche-action en contrat CIFRE, quand les contraintes du terrain deviennent opportunités
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose de communiquer sur un retour d’expérience et d’engager une réflexion sur la réalisation d’une recherche critique en sciences humaines financée par son terrain de recherche. L’ambition est ainsi d’adopter un double point de vue : celui de l’universitaire et du professionnel. Cette posture n’étant pas sans inconvénient puisqu’elle implique de se poser la question à la fois des attentes et des besoins du monde professionnel et scientifique dans le cadre de ce qui relève de la recherche-action. Être engagé par son terrain, c’est se confronter à la contradiction des temporalités et de multiples intérêts. Nous verrons que l’élaboration de l’objet de recherche, l’obtention des données et les modalités de restitution, interpelle la nécessité d’adopter un point de vue réflexif et pour le chercheur de transformer les contraintes en opportunités.
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 | 0.044 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".