Sociología clínica y psicodinámica del trabajo en el estudio del placer y el sufrimiento en el trabajo cotidiano
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cuando se estudia el placer y el sufrimiento en los escenarios laborales contemporáneos, es común encontrar que estas dos categorías aparecen desagregadas o mal articuladas entre sí. El «sufrimiento social» y los estados de incomodidad anímica o existencial han sido tratados muy comúnmente por la sociología. Por su parte, los estados gratificantes han estado más presentes en los intereses de los estudios de la psicología industrial. Sin embargo, es menos fácil hallar investigaciones que examinen estas dos experiencias sensibles en la propia dialéctica que trenzan entre sí. Precisamente, interesadas en la realidad empírica de la organización del trabajo actual, la sociología clínica y muy especialmente la psicodinámica del trabajo, han logrado hallazgos teóricos y metodológicos considerables al estudiar, en paralelo, este tipo de vivencias. Poner algunos de estos hallazgos al servicio de los investigadores en management y en gestión humana, es el propósito del presente artículo. When studying the pleasure and suffering in contemporary business scenarios, it is common that these two categories are broken down or poorly articulated with each other. The suffering and mental states of discomfort or existential very commonly have been treated by sociology. For its part, states have been more gratifying present in the interests of industrial psychology studies. However, it is less easy to find research that examines these two sensory experiences in the very dialectics that weave together. Just interested in the empirical reality of the current work organization, clinical sociology and especially the psychodynamics of work, have made significant theoretical and methodological findings by studying, in parallel, these types of experiences. Put some of these findings to serve researchers in management and human management, is the purpose of this article.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".