Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment sélectionner un petit nombre d’individus pour disposer d’un ensemble de cas dans une enquête ethnographique ? En prenant l’exemple du groupe de six garçons qui structure l’analyse du livre Loyautés radicales, cet article présente trois stratégies de composition pour regrouper des « bons » cas : multiplication des points de comparaisons synchroniques dans une étude de trajectoires attentive à la variété des pentes et des micro-écarts ; multiplication des points de comparaisons diachroniques à travers une analyse biographique sensible aux événements, aux transformations et aux marqueurs générationnels ; multiplication des points de comparaisons entre discours, croyances et pratiques. On pourra alors voir comment ce type de comparaisons aide à comprendre des processus sociaux controversés — radicalisation, délinquance, religiosité musulmane — à l’aune d’un concept biographique, « la seconde zone ».
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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".