Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé En plein coeur de la révolution actuelle du travail, comment le volontariat s'insère-t-il dans les nouvelles pratiques du travail? À l'aide de recherches pertinentes, complétées par quelques résultats d'une recherche menée auprès de 500 adultes en situation de discontinuité professionnelle, nous apportons certains éléments de réponse à cette question. Nous examinons notamment les notions du volontariat, ses liens avec le travail et la cohésion sociale, la notion du projet de volontariat et sa nécessité à être défini au même titre que le projet professionnel. Toutes ces données laissent croire que la formation continue doit préparer encore davantage les adultes à défmir et à réaliser un projet de participation sociale à deux volets: un projet professionnel et un projet de volontariat. Des implications pratiques sont proposées. Daily work is in the midst of a revolution. How, in these circumstances, does volunteering fit with work? This paper uses recent published work, and research on 500 adults who have had careers characterized by discontinuity, to answer that question. It considers links between volunteering, work and social cohesiveness, and analyzes notions of volunteering as "project" and as work. Continuing education should provide programs that help adults to plan and to realize social participation, understood as work and as volunteering.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".