Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le renouveau éthique actuel passe, semble-t-il, par une forme de professionnalisation ou de reprofessionnalisation des services. Qui dit professionnalisation dit habituellement aussi formation au professionnalisme. Quels sont les enjeux de telles formations à l’heure où les organisations y investissent des sommes importantes ? Les données d’une recherche où le professionnalisme est étudié sous l’angle de la relation qui se joue entre l’identité professionnelle et la posture éthique d’un praticien servent ici à mieux comprendre le phénomène et à identifier des enjeux pour la formation. Le portrait de quatre postures éthiques et, ensuite, un regard sur la forme de professionnalisme liée à la déontologie juridique contribuent à identifier des enjeux de formation. Il en ressort notamment l’importance de considérer la perspective identitaire que toute formation au professionnalisme implique lorsqu’on souhaite atteindre les cibles visées, voire entre autres celle de la motivation des personnes à s’investir éthiquement dans l’organisation.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".