La pratique réflexive dans la formation en travail social. Le parcours de professionnalisation et le mémoire de recherche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se propose d’analyser les enjeux de la pratique réflexive dans le champ professionnel du travail social au prisme du cadre théorique de la sociologie des professions. S’agissant des métiers du social dont les missions sont orientées vers le traitement de situations singulières et complexes, la posture réflexive s’impose au praticien comme une nécessité dans sa pratique au-delà des techniques et des méthodes d’intervention. Il s’agit de faire face à des situations conjecturelles qui obligent à des délibérations complexes et qui engagent le praticien dans des pratiques prudentielles au sein d’organisations de travail elles-mêmes réflexives. La pratique réflexive passe par un apprentissage dans un processus de professionnalisation au moment de la formation initiale. La démarche d’acquisition d’une posture réflexive du futur praticien est illustrée à travers deux dispositifs de formation : l’autoévaluation du parcours de professionnalisation et l’initiation à la recherche.
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 | 0.038 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".