La relation de service identitaire, ou la relation de service sans services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'utilisation désormais fréquente de la notion de relation de service pour désigner les fonctions et les activités du travail social correspond à de profondes mutations dans la conception des politiques sociales, glissant d'un modèle républicain de promotion des individus et des groupes à une vision procédurale, relativement déliée du Droit. Assimiler le travail social à une simple relation de service fait oublier que le « produit » de la relation de service social (le soin, le secours, etc.) n'est pas suffisant pour expliquer le fonctionnement de la relation de service social. Car ce produit n'est pas la véritable finalité du service mais sert de prétexte au véritable produit attendu, celui de la réparation identitaire. Il n'y a pas de « service » qui soit capable de répondre à la question de la cohésion sociale et du « vivre ensemble ». Il faut donc bien que le travail social demeure « une relation de service sans services ».
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".