Parcours réflexif : élaboration d’une méthode d’analyse existentielle en approche inductive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article expose des éléments essentiels du cheminement réflexif, itératif et inductif du chercheur qui ont mené à l’élaboration d’une méthode et d’une grille d’analyse au cours d’une thèse doctorale en psychologie portant sur l’expérience de la confrontation à la mort chez les infirmières en contexte d’aide médicale à mourir. D’abord, les théories ayant émergé au cours de l’élaboration des cadres théoriques et méthodologiques de la recherche et ayant suscité chez le chercheur l’intérêt d’adapter une grille d’analyse existentielle pour la recherche qualitative, inspirée de la philosophie de Karl Jaspers, seront présentées. La méthode d’analyse et la grille d’analyse existentielle, considérées en tant que guide d’exploration de l’expérience vécue, ainsi que ses concepts et son utilisation possible dans le cadre d’une recherche qualitative d’approche inductive seront par la suite exposés. Enfin, des limites, des apports et des recommandations concernant ce type de démarche seront discutés.
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 | 0.090 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".