Les voies du récit. Pratiques biographiques en formation, intervention et recherche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les récits de vie sont bien connus en recherche. Ils permettent de construire une vision fine et subtile du monde vécu, de la société vue de l’intérieur. Mais ils sont utilisés dans bien d’autres milieux, notamment en formation professionnelle, dans des interventions visant la transformation sociale ou dans le champ de l’éducation. Les seize chapitres de cet ouvrage proposent d’explorer de tels usages des pratiques biographiques et autobiographiques dans des contextes variés. Les auteurs et les autrices, venant des deux côtés de l’Atlantique (Suisse, Pologne, France, Allemagne, Portugal, Cameroun, Gabon, Brésil et Canada), témoignent ainsi de la diversité et de la fécondité de ces pratiques. Cet ouvrage est le fruit d’un partenariat de trois années entre l’Université de Basse-Silésie (Pologne), l’Université de Tours (France) et l’Université Laval (Québec, Canada). Publié aux Éditions science et bien commun : https://editionscienceetbiencommun.org
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 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.020 |
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".