Entre valeurs humanistes et modèles d’intervention : réflexions théoriques sur le sentiment de non-reconnaissance des travailleurs sociaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’identité professionnelle constitue une source d’enjeux constants en travail social. Si les services sociaux tendent à être méconnus, voire dévalorisés, par la population (Stephensen, et collab., 2000), un sentiment de non-reconnaissance est fréquemment ressenti chez les travailleurs sociaux, allant jusqu’à provoquer un haut taux de détresse et de retrait au travail (Pelchat, et collab., 2004). Par-delà les contraintes externes qui pèsent sur elle, l’identité professionnelle relève néanmoins d’un enjeu plus fondamental au sein de la profession. Sa professionnalité se fondant sur une dimension relationnelle hautement abstraite, symbolique et complexe, la pratique professionnelle et les contributions propres au travail social demeurent difficilement compréhensibles pour plusieurs. Cet article s’attarde à problématiser la dimension relationnelle du travail social et à proposer quelques pistes de réflexion pouvant mieux cerner l’origine des difficultés qui y sont reliées.
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 | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".