Bibliographic record
Abstract
RésuméLe présent écrit tente de montrer pourquoi l’ethnographie constitue une approche méthodologique utile pour l’examen des pratiques sociales dans l’analyse du rapport à l’identité. Sur le plan méthodologique, l’ethnographie s’intéresse plus précisément aux expériences de vie quotidienne des individus en tentant de mieux comprendre les pratiques sociales dans lesquelles elles s’insèrent. C’est à partir du discours des individus impliqués dans ces pratiques que cette analyse s’effectue. Ainsi, l’approche ethnographique donne-t-elle la parole aux enquêtés. Il s’agit ici d’une étude ethnographique récente et mon propos est de démontrer la pertinence d’une telle approche méthodologique dans l’analyse du rapport à l’identité. Cette étude a porté sur la façon dont se forme la notion d’identité chez un groupe d’adolescents et d’adolescentes qui fréquente l’école secondaire de langue française en Ontario, au Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.378 | 0.202 |
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".