Syndicats et organisation du travail : un rendez-vous manqué
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article pose la question de l’influence syndicale sur l’évolution des formes d’organisation du travail. En France, il n’y apas de tradition en la matière, les syndicats ne s’étant jamais véritablement engagés sur ce terrain. Les transformations actuellesqui affectent les entreprises, l’évolution des modalités de la négociation, l’urgence de nouvelles questions sociales commecelle de l’emploi pourraient jouer dans le sens d’un recentrage sur cette question. Pourtant, aucune dynamique ne va dans cesens. Il apparaît d’ailleurs que l’organisation du travail ne se modernise pas réellement dans ses principes, qui relèvent toujoursmajoritairement de la logique taylorienne. Quant aux syndicats, de plus en plus affaiblis par une désyndicalisation inquiétante,de plus en plus divisés (avec l’apparition de nouveaux syndicats) et marginalisés, ils ne semblent pas en mesure de se saisir decet enjeu important et complexe qu’est l’organisation 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".