MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2658546299 · doi:10.7202/1035014ar

Que savons-nous des travailleurs sociaux ? Un débat à plusieurs voix

2016· article· fr· W2658546299 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michel Vuille

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article est le résultat et la synthèse d’un débat que le comité de rédaction suisse a eu avec des invités autour des 3 contributions de Troutot, Sauvin et Dind. Il est « réactif » et révèle donc plus les lacunes et fixe les limites qu’il n’esquisse des pistes ou des positions nouvelles. Il reprend des thèmes tels que l’idéologie et le malaise des travailleurs sociaux, classes sociales et travail social, discours et changements. L’auteur y ajoute sa note personnelle, et fait des remarques au sujet du changement d’attitude des travailleurs sociaux face à leur travail : « À l’inverse des « pionniers » qui se sont engagés « jusqu’au cou » (...) les nouveaux travailleurs optent plus volontiers pour le temps partiel, pour des changements de postes fréquents, etc. »

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207