Le processus d’observation ou de la nécessité d’être « pris(e) au jeu »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’observation participante est une méthode qui, malgré les principes requis de vigilance épistémo-méthodologique, présuppose l’implication affective et idéologique du chercheur, alors que la place qu’il occupe dans l’univers social qu’il étudie lui est largement imposée. À quelles conditions faire de cette double difficulté un levier de connaissance ? Sur la base d’une enquête menée dans un centre hospitalier, cet article portera sur la fonction d’aidante à tout faire qui a structuré l’inscription sociale de la chercheuse au sein de deux unités de soins. On montrera que si cette modalité d’engagement au sein des équipes soignantes fut un levier d’insertion dans un contexte professionnel complexe, et la condition du passage à une observation compréhensive de la relation soignant-soigné, elle fut également une stratégie de survie face à des situations émotionnellement chargées. Ultimement, l’article soulève la question du lien entre posture éthique de recherche et engagement social du chercheur.
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 | 0.023 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".