Le contrat sous prescriptions discursives dans le travail d’accompagnement des parents en protection de l’enfance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse les écrits qui formalisent les interactions entre professionnels et usagers dans le cadre de mesures administratives d’aide éducative à domicile en protection de l’enfance en France. La contractualisation des relations entre les pouvoirs publics et les usagers est une des formes les plus criantes de l’activation des usagers. Cet article s’appuie sur l’analyse de différents contrats contraignant les usagers, sur des entretiens réalisés auprès de divers professionnels et de familles en protection de l’enfance et sur l’observation de quelques interactions. Les fonctionnements énonciatifs des écrits contractuels visant à élaborer l’accord et l’engagement des parents dans des mesures à forte valeur injonctive sont mis en lumière. Ces procédés discursifs spécifiques à ces nouvelles normes d’actions publiques empêchent le conflit et les désaccords parentaux. Cette subjectivité parentale empêchée s’exprime par le silence et d’autres actes non-verbaux.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".