Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="resume" dir="ltr">Les nouvelles formes d’organisation du travail reposent sur un paradoxe : les conditions de travail se durcissent et l’autonomie dans l’exécution des tâches et des activités s’accroît. Le paradoxe se résout, le plus souvent, par la mise en exergue d’une nouvelle forme d’aliénation, dont la puissance repose sur le principe de l’engagement contraint et d’une ruse du management avec la notion du gagnant – gagnant. Le paradoxe peut être abordé et analysé sous un autre angle, à partir du travail lui-même, en tentant de comprendre le sens qu’il prend pour les salariés. Conclure à une forme renouvelée de l’aliénation suppose une structure cohérente capable d’imposer et d’articuler une ligne et un mode d’organisation, s’emboîtant parfaitement. Or, dans la réalité, la cohérence n’est qu’apparente et souvent fragile. L’incohérence permet d’envisager une cassure entre les intentions du travail et ce que vivent et éprouvent les salariés. Ce sont deux pièces d’un même puzzle, mais qui parfois s’emboîtent mal. Et c’est ce désajustement qui à la source de l’expérience des salariés. Il y a un rapport dialectique entre ces deux aspects, qui permet de saisir le paradoxe des nouvelles formes d’organisation du travail.</p><p class="abstract" dir="ltr">The new ways of organizing one’s work are based on a paradox: whereas working conditions have grown harder, the autonomy in implementing tasks and activities is ever-increasing. A paradox generally solved by highlighting a new form of alienation, whose strength rests with the principle of commitment under coercion laced with the management’s crafty use of the notion of splitting the profits fifty-fifty. The paradox can be approached and analyzed from another angle altogether — from the very work at stake—, by attempting to understand what it means for the employees. To come to the conclusion of a new form of alienation requires a coherent structure able to impose and work out organizational lines and methods that fit together to perfection. Now, in concrete terms, consistency can be only apparent, and often transient. Inconsistency enables to hypothesize the existence of a gap between work’s purposes and employees’ experiences and feelings. The two pieces, that are part of the same jigsaw puzzle, sometimes fit badly, and the employees’ experience stem from this very disconnection. The dialectical relation between these two aspects makes it possible to grasp the paradox of the new forms of work organization.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".