La science est-elle contre les pauvres ? L'analyse du discours savant et politique sur les vulnérables (Essai critique sur l'ouvrage d'Hélène Thomas, Les vulnérables - La démocratie contre les pauvres, Éditions Du Croquant, 2010, 254 Pages) (Is Science Against the Poor? A Critical Analysis of the Scientific and Political Discourse on Vulnerability)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: En s’appuyant sur l’important ouvrage d’Helene Thomas, Les vulnerables : la democratie contre les pauvres, cet essai pose un regard critique sur le discours de la vulnerabilite au coeur de l’intervention des programmes de prevention precoce. L’auteure se penche principalement sur le role et la responsabilite des chercheurs et des intervenants dans la creation et la reproduction de discours et de savoirs sur les pauvres. Elle reconnait les effets pervers lies a la production d’un discours miserabiliste sur les pauvres et les risques lies a l’appropriation illegitime de leurs voix et elle pose clairement les dilemmes ethiques que la recherche et l’intervention soulevent. Elle souligne cependant l’importance de resister et de s’approprier le discours dominant de facon subversive sur le terrain et refuse le relativisme dans lequel Thomas nous confine en suggerant des facons de dire, de faire et d’intervenir qui permettent de denoncer les inegalites de conditions et de droits dont les pauvres sont victimes et de s’engager avec eux dans la lutte contre la pauvrete.English Abstract: This paper builds on the important book by Helene Thomas, Les vulnerables : la democratie contre les pauvres, and presents a critical analysis of the discourse on vulnerability underlying early childhood intervention programs. In particular, the paper focuses on researchers’ and social workers’ role and responsibility in creating and reproducing knowledge and discourses on the poor. On the one hand, it acknowledges the serious problems associated with the production of discourses on the poor that dwell on abject poverty and destitution, as well as the risks associated with illegitimate appropriation of the voices of the poor. It also clearly states the ethical dilemmas of both research and intervention in this area. This said, the paper underscores the importance of resisting and subverting the dominant discourse and rejects the confines of Thomas’ relativistic insights. It instead proposes ways of speaking, researching and intervening with the poor that can challenge the inequalities they face in conditions and rights and effectively fight poverty.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".