Posture clinique en sciences sociales et rapport à l’objet de recherche : tension entre proximité et distanciation dans le processus d’objectivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an epistemological reflection on the clinical posture in social sciences and the relationship to the object in a thesis project where the student is situated in a dual posture of proximity and distance. As a speaker, immigrant mother and doctoral student wishing to better understand the transcultural encounter between speakers and immigrant parents, the author takes you into her reflection on the relevant modalities that can promote the realization of an objectification process in clinical research in social sciences. The objective of the presentation of this reflexivity is to provide other student-researchers, situated in a dual posture, with avenues of reflection to develop a frame of reference allowing them to move towards objectification. The author thus hopes to contribute to transforming the perception of subjectivity, considered as an obstacle to a lever in the construction of scientific knowledge. First, she presents the broad outlines of her thesis project as well as her clinical posture in research, including her epistemological positioning and her methodological choices. She will then present her reflexivity by answering the question "Who am I?" in order to better understand her relationships with the research object. Finally, she will propose some of the fundamental principles and tools that can be available to student-researchers wishing to progress towards objectification while reducing the tension likely to arise between proximity and distancing from the research object.
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 | 0.157 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.147 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".