De la méthodologie aux méthodes de recherche (et non l’inverse)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les « données » sont souvent réduites aux informations recueillies durant la recherche alors qu'elles résultent de dynamiques relationnelles ayant contribué à les produire. Ce Dossier rassemble un échantillon des réflexions menées à ce sujet durant la 9ème Université d'été du RéDoc (Réseau international d'écoles doctorales en sociologie/sciences sociales de l'Association internationale des sociologues de langue française) qui s’est tenue à l'Université d'Ottawa en 2018. Les échanges ont porté sur les dynamiques des relations sociales qui orientent le processus de production de nouvelles connaissances à partir du concept de médiations sociales. Ce concept, qui renvoie tant aux rapports entre la personne observatrice et la personne observée qu’aux médiations qui jalonnent le processus de recherche de la conception de l'objet de recherche jusqu'à l'analyse des données en passant par le terrain d'enquête, permet de poser un regard critique sur la (re)production des connaissances et des discours.
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 | 0.099 | 0.252 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.011 |
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".