Academics put to the test of new institutional injunctions : A study between France and Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La thèse vise à comprendre le lien existant entre les classements internationaux, le système de publication ainsi que les acteurs de l'enseignement et de la recherche en gestion. Nous approfondirons leurs relations en nous basant sur la théorie de la structuration de Giddens et les concepts d'habitus et de champ chez Bourdieu. Les classements construisent des indicateurs de performance généralement basés sur les articles dans des revues scientifiques internationales. Les critères des classements sont internalisés par les établissements et influencent leur stratégie ainsi que leur système d'évaluation. C'est tout un système qui se construit autour des publications pour mesurer la qualité des établissements. Or, les enseignants-chercheurs ne partagent pas les mêmes attitudes par rapport au système de publication. Nous avons élaboré une typologie afin de rendre compte de cette diversité des acteurs et de leurs stratégies d’adaptation face aux nouvelles injonctions institutionnelles.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".