Psychologisation ou singularisation? L’intervention sociale au temps de l’accompagnement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’hypothèse de la psychologisation nourrit la réflexion critique sur l’intervention sociale depuis maintenant quelques décennies, suscitant des mises en garde de toutes sortes à l’égard de l’appauvrissement du social et notamment de l’action collective. Si la mauvaise réputation de la psychologisation n’est plus à démontrer, il semble pertinent et nécessaire en revanche 1) d’élargir la réflexion sur le spectre des possibles qui émergent des dynamiques historiques et sociales contemporaines auxquelles la psychologisation est associée; 2) de replacer le phénomène de la prolifération des pratiques d’accompagnement qui semblent s’appuyer sur une psychologisation croissante des interventions sociales dans un contexte de transformations sociales plus larges et 3) d’ illustrer les liens entre accompagnement et psychologisation à l’aide d’une recherche empirique récente centrée sur l’étude des pratiques d’accompagnement dans deux contextes « d’expérience-limite ».
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".