Illustrations, apports et limites d’une posture inductive en recherche-action-formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La recherche-action-formation (RAF) n’est pas une approche méthodologique nouvelle. Elle peut par ailleurs emprunter différents paradigmes et s’actualiser par l’entremise d’un éventail de méthodes et d’outils (Dolbec & Prud’homme, 2009). Dans cet article, nous souhaitons montrer que la RAF représente un terreau fertile à l’induction, une posture singulière que le chercheur peut adopter dans l’exploration de phénomènes humains et selon laquelle c’est la méthode qui s’adapte à l’objet et aux particularités du terrain, et non l’inverse. Plus précisément, l’article vise à illustrer comment s’est manifestée cette perspective inductive dans l’articulation singulière d’une RAF (Bergeron, 2014). Sont notamment mises en lumière certaines marques de l’induction qui influencent la nature des régulations entre les trois pôles de la RAF où les processus de collecte et d’analyse des données sont en constant dialogue. L’article se termine par une discussion entourant certains apports et limites qui peuvent s’associer à l’adoption d’une telle posture.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".