Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partant du postulat que les conclusions des études étrangères n'étaient pas applicables au Québec sans vérification empirique, l'auteur a entrepris une étude de sociologie historique en vue d'apporter quelques éléments de réflexion au problème de l'émergence de groupes professionnels. Le cas de l'agronomie apparaît riche en enseignements à cause de son éloignement du modèle classique de professionnalisation. L'intention pédagogique des premiers agronomes «officiels» renvoyait à l'étude des idéologies éducatives agricoles de la seconde partie du siècle dernier dont le champ se structure en deux discours antinomiques auxquels les groupes sociaux adhèrent plus ou moins. Bien que chaque idéologie propose un modèle d'occupation diamétralement opposé, elles laissent place à la constitution d'un savoir légitimant la constitution d'un groupement formel. Si cette analyse historique jette un éclairage sur les déterminismes idéologiques dans le processus de formation d'une profession, elle n'épuise pas l'explication du phénomène professionnel qui fait appel à une théorie renouvelée de la division sociale du travail.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".