<i>Une méthodologie générale de la sociologie ?</i> <i>Les médiations sociales de la production</i> <i>de la connaissance sociologique</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article avance qu’une problématique méthodologique des médiations sociales permet de localiser socialement la production de la connaissance sociologique. La méthodologie s’y trouve redéfinie comme un langage favorisant la coopération entre sociologues afin de sortir de l’indifférence ou de la déqualification entre les interprétations du social. Cette coopération est possible parce que l’étude des médiations sociales montre que la pluralité des formes de connaissance compose tant les êtres sociaux que les chercheurs et chercheures. Elles suscitent chez ces derniers le développement d’un langage général pour décrire les formes sociales constitutives de leur existence et de leurs recherches. La méthodologie est donc objectivation de la démarche heuristique plutôt que prescription de celle-ci. Elle vise à expliciter les règles d’une réciprocité des perspectives entre les observatoires du social contribuant à cette visée de généralité définissant la sociologie comme forme de connaissance.
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 | 0.058 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".