MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582061638 · doi:10.7202/001180ar

Des hiérarchies à l’intérieur de hiérarchie

2002· article· fr· W1582061638 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles Derber, William Robson Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueSociologie et sociétés · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article explore la position de classe de professionnels dans l'entreprise capitaliste. Ayant procédé à un examen historique de la situation des artisans du 19e siècle, de même que de celle des professionnels du 2O' siècle, nous arguons que des relations de production "logocratiques" sont en train d'émerger parallèlement aux relations de production capitalistes tout en étant mêlées à celles-ci. Nous entendons par "logocratique" un deuxième axe de stratification et de domination de classe organisé autour de l'expertise qui fait autorité. Après avoir considéré les bureaux d'avocats et les pratiques médicales de groupe comme des modèles de lieu de travail logocratique, appelés ici logofirmes, nous explorons la nature de la "logofirme interne": les hiérarchies de classe basées sur la connaissance émergeant au sein des firmes de haute technologie et d'autres entreprises capitalistes. Nous caractérisons les professionnels comme les partenaires juniors des capitalistes dans un "capitalisme logocratique". Les professionnels contribuent à créer et à gérer la division du travail capitaliste, tout en poursuivant leurs propres intérêts de classe en déniant aux travailleurs compétence et autorité.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.790
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociologie et sociétésSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207