Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir du cas des concierges d’hôtels de luxe, cet article cherche à examiner comment faire du travail de nuit l’objet d’une sociologie des groupes professionnels qui échappe aux pièges d’une catégorisation essentialiste ou relativiste de la « nuit ». Il articule différentes temporalités observées à différentes échelles d’analyse. D’abord, l’échelle microsociologique des tâches quotidiennes est saisie par les outils de la sociologie du travail. Ensuite, l’échelle des trajectoires professionnelles est vue à travers la perspective de la sociologie de l’emploi. Enfin l’échelle plus large du groupe professionnel est abordée sous l’angle de la sociologie des mobilisations collectives. Ces trois étapes montrent toutes que la marginalité des concierges de nuit dessine en réalité la face cachée du groupe dans son entier. Leur prise en compte dans l’analyse, qui oblige le sociologue à élargir son périmètre d’enquête et à se faire en quelque sorte nyctalope, est dès lors indispensable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".