Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the history of the notion of work in relation to its philosophical and anthropological meaning, as well as to its meaning in a sociological context. Work is certainly conceived of as a productive act, but it is also considered as bestowing the right to benefit from the privileges of membership in society. Three perspectives are looked at in this context: those of A. Gorz, R Bourdieu and A. Touraine. On this basis, the proposition that “work is dead” is examined closely. The author argues that work is still a way of integrating into society, but a way that actually compromises citizenship rights with regard to those who are working. Young people are the members of the population who are principally affected by this form of integration called “flexploitation.” La généalogie de la notion de travail est d'abord retracédans cet article, tant dans l'orbite de la philosophic et de l'anthropologie que de la sociologie. Le travail y est certes conçu comme action productive mais également comme fer de lance du droit de cité. Trois perspectives sont abordées à ce sujet: celles d'A. Gorz, de P. Bourdieu et d'A. Touraine. Sur cette base, la thèse de la «fin du travail» est passée au crible. L'auteur argue que le travail est encore vecteur d'in‐tégration à la société, mais sous une forme qui fait l'impasse sur les droits des personnes qui l'exercent, bref, sur leur citoyenneté. Les jeunes représentent la tranche de la population touchée au premier chef par cette forme d'insertion nommée flexploitation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".