La reconnaissance dans les organisations. Précisions terminologiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette note de recherche expose une préoccupation d’ordre terminologique et vise à débroussailler le vocabulaire autour de la question, trop floue selon nous, du ou des sujets dans les organisations. Nous avons centré nos réflexions sur la problématique de la reconnaissance et avons tenté de répondre aux questions suivantes (au moins en partie) : De quoi et de qui parle-t-on quand on évoque la reconnaissance au sein des organisations ? Qu'est-ce que cela implique pour une meilleure compréhension de l'articulation entre les niveaux individuel et collectif ? Pourquoi cette question est-elle particulièrement d’actualité, notamment pour comprendre ce qui se joue lorsque les frontières entre les mondes privé et professionnel se brouillent ?
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 | 0.025 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".