Une injonction : appartenir, participer. Le retour de la cohésion sociale et du bon citoyen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les fondements sociologiques et philosophiques du sens du « vivre ensemble », du common good, du sense of sharing, du lien social, de la cohésion sociale et de la citoyenneté font l'objet d'un débat qui se poursuit depuis plus de dix ans dans la littérature universitaire, tant francophone que d'expression anglaise. L'article expose quelques-uns des arguments soulevés à la faveur de ces discussions, dont on ne peut oublier qu'ils ont été construits dans un contexte politique. Bien que le vocabulaire utilisé ne soit pas uniforme, les débats propres à chaque ensemble national contribuent à la légitimation, par les gouvernements, de nouvelles politiques de protection sociale qui délèguent au secteur privé marchand et à des organisations de la société civile la prise en charge de certains problèmes dits sociaux.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".