Le chronomètre et le carillon. Temps rationalisé et temps domestique en maison de retraite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude a pour objet la rencontre problématique entre les temporalités spécifiques de l’entreprise (« faire vite ») et de l’accompagnement des personnes âgées vivant en institution (« respecter le rythme de chacun »). Le terme dépendance prend ici tout son sens, puisque le placement en établissement est aussi un déclassement en ce qui concerne le droit de gouverner soi-même l’occupation du temps. Lever, coucher, toilette, habillage, alimentation… ces pratiques quotidiennes font l’objet d’une planification bien établie, qui s’impose aux résidents. Mais, par ailleurs, la gérontologie et l’éthique professionnelle enjoignent d’humaniser le traitement réservé aux personnes âgées. Cet impératif humaniste consiste notamment à respecter les temporalités individuelles. Comment se conjuguent alors, en pratique, les exigences du temps rationalisé, plus ou moins chronométré, et celles du temps domestique, qui peut se révéler tout simplement interminable ?
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".