Entre les actes : investigation inductive des expressions et légitimations du goût pour le théâtre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’adoption d’une approche inductive implique la mobilisation des écrits et la prise de distance par rapport à ceux-ci. Mais ce rapport demeure toutefois problématique. L’entreprise de recherche dans laquelle s’ancre cet article suit trois principales stratégies afin d’aborder ce rapport trouble aux écrits. La première stratégie repose sur la valorisation de la connaissance empirique et la rupture avec les préconceptions, et contribue à la mise à l’épreuve de notions-clés, notamment le « théâtre » et l’« amateur ». La deuxième stratégie se décline en deux volets : la gloutonnerie livresque et le croisement de diverses perspectives épistémologiques. La troisième stratégie impose, quant à elle, une valorisation du discours des informatrices et informateurs qui prend forme à travers des entretiens narratifs où la conversation est mise de l’avant. Le présent article vise ainsi à documenter ces stratégies et à les inscrire dans le projet de recherche.
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 | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".