MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W31109374 · doi:10.1186/s13287-019-1233-x

Analyser les entretiens sociologiques

2004· article· en· W31109374 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Guy Bergeron, Dominique Labbé

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cell Research & Therapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHumanitiesFrenchArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On examine les problèmes posés par l'analyse des entretiens sociologiques à l'aide d'un corpus d'une soixantaine d'interviews à propos des relations industrielles dans les entreprises du Québec : normalisation orthographique, balisage et lemmatisation des textes. Il faudrait pouvoir comparer les enquêtés avec la population générale. Les auteurs donne un exemple de cette démarche à l'aide d'un corpus de plus de 300 entretiens réalisés avec des Français (plus de 2 millions de mots). Il apparaît que les Québécois préfèrent le groupe nominal et qu'ils utilisent moins d'adverbes et de conjonctions et que leurs propos sont nettement moins tendus que ceux des Français.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cell Research & TherapySame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207