L’autopraxéographie, une méthode pour construire des savoirs à partir de son expérience dans une perspective complexe et interdisciplinaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to explain autopraxeography and to show how this method uses interdisciplinarity to understand lived situations in a complex way. This method is based on the human experience of at least one of the co-researchers. It is situated in a pragmatic co-constructivist epistemological paradigm. It uses a wide range of theories, regardless of their original disciplines, to step back from the lived experience. It is a dialogue between the lived experience and each point of view that can be found through multidisciplinary scientific writings, co-researchers, reviewers, etc. The fact of digging into one's own experiences without being locked into a discipline can allow one to answer disciplinary questions in a way that accepts the complexity of the lived reality. Furthermore, this method, when used by students in a continuing education, process can facilitate their opportunity to become reflective practitioners aware of the need to break down disciplinary barriers. L'objectif de cet article est d'expliquer l'autopraxeographie et de montrer comment cette méthode utilise l'interdisciplinarité pour appréhender de manière complexe les situations vécues. Cette méthode, illustrée par un exemple où elle a été utilisée, est basée sur l'expérience humaine d'au moins un des cochercheurs. Elle se situe dans un paradigme épistémologique coconstructiviste pragmatique. Elle utilise un large spectre de théories quelles que soient leurs disciplines originelles pour prendre du recul sur l'expérience vécue. Il s'agit d'un dialogue reliant le vécu, et chaque point de vue que l'on retrouve via des écrits scientifiques pluridisciplinaires, des cochercheurs, des reviewers,… Le fait de creuser ses propres expériences sans s'enfermer dans une discipline peut permettre de répondre à des questionnements disciplinaires de façon à accepter la complexité de la réalité du vécu. De plus, cette méthode, quand elle est utilisée par des étudiants dans un processus de formation continue, peut permettre de faciliter leur possibilité de devenir des praticiens réflexifs conscients de la nécessité de briser les barrières disciplinaires.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".