Techniques industrielles, le Japon et l’utilisation des capacités humaines1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur se demande s’il est possible de développer des techniques industrielles adaptées aux humains dans le capitalisme actuel. Le développement industriel capitaliste a donné lieu à des systèmes techniques, tels le taylorisme et le fordisme, fondés sur la subordination des humains aux machines. Pour Marx, cette subordination faisait partie intégrante des structures du capitalisme, fondé sur la rentabilité. Certains auteurs ont tenté de briser cette subordination, même dans le cadre du capitalisme, en imaginant des techniques, fondées sur l’informatique, qui requalifieraient le travail industriel. D’autres ont vu dans la mise en place de nouveaux systèmes dans les industries japonaises (systèmes Toyota et Fujitsu) des exemples de techniques industrielles différentes, qui redonneraient le contrôle des machines aux humains. En examinant de plus près l’utilisation japonaise des techniques industrielles, cet article en arrive à une conclusion mitigée : il y a des possibilités, mais limitées, de développement de techniques adaptées aux capacités humaines dans le capitalisme.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".