MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230309983 · doi:10.7202/1085612ar

L’analyse qualitative informatisée : logiquedes puces et quête de sens

2000· article· fr· W4230309983 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches qualitatives · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le recours massif aux nouveaux outils d’analyse qualitative informatisée risque-t-il d’imposer un carcan fatal à la recherche qualitative? À partir d’une expérience de formation et de consultation avec une variété d’individus s’initiant à l’analyse qualitative informatisée et d’une réflexion sociologique sur le pouvoir coercitif des inscriptions dans les instruments et les machines complexes, nous proposons que l’influence des logiciels spécialisés ne peut être comprise qu’en relation avec le degré d’expertise antérieure de l’apprenti et les conditions socioéconomiques de réalisation de la recherche. L’acquisition d’une culture fondamentale solide en recherche qualitative et un recul critique vis à vis des exigences productivistes de la recherche subventionnée actuelle apparaissent comme des conditions essentielles à l’utilisation libératrice de ces puissants outils.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.682
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.055 · 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