Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author, a psycho-sociologist and a professor in the department of sociology at l'Université de Montreal, looks back and reflects on his practice as an intervener in different types of groups. He returns to his first experiences with T-groups and to the analysis of them which he made at the beginning of his practice. Furthermore, this analysis touches on questions that remain very relevant. Thus the author explains why, for social reasons, he came to privilege work with "real groups" rather than that with spontaneous groups. On the basis of twenty years of experience and a view of many group approaches it can be asked whether the question of man in society as a change agent should not be posed to a greater extent within groups. 1) Dans Sociologie A Sociétés, vol. 9, no 2, d'octobre 1977, le lecteur trouvera un article de moi qui préserve une réflexion plus systématique mais sans référence immédiate à ma propre pratique. Oe numéro, entièrement consacré au thème "psychologie, sociologie, intervention" comprend également plusieurs textes qui ne sont pas étrangers à certains thèmes développés ici. On y trouvera aussi de nombreuses références bibliographiques.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".