La recherche qualitative comme modede génération conceptuelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La littérature technique a l’habitude de différencier les méthodologies quantitatives et les méthodologies qualitatives quand elle se réfère à la recherche sociale. Dans cet article, nous signalerons le peu de fertilité conceptuelle de cette dénomination. Face à cette situation, notre intention est de stimuler le dialogue sur la nature de la recherche qualitative et d’ouvrir un débat sur sa nomination, en en proposant une nouvelle : mode de génération conceptuelle. Nous présenterons la recherche qualitative comme l’un des modes de faire de la science sociale, modes entendus comme différentes manières de penser et de concevoir la pratique de la recherche sociale par rapport à la tradition épistémologique des paradigmes des sciences sociales qui lui servent de support. Notre intention est de déployer la trame des dimensions épistémologique, logique et méthodologique du paradigme herméneutique en cherchant à rendre visible le lien entre la dimension épistémologique et les processus méthodologiques propres de la recherche qualitative, de manière à fonder la révision de sa dénomination et notre proposition.
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 | 0.098 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".