À propos de l’ouvrage de Robert A. Baruch Bush et Joseph P. Folger, The Promise of Mediation. The Transformative Approach to Conflict , Éd. révisée, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2005, 287 p.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le renouveau de la médiation est un phénomène relativement récent, ce qui explique qu’il s’agit d’un mode de régulation sociale en construction et qu’il existe encore un certain flou conceptuel autour de la notion même de médiation. C’est pour cette raison, que la question de la formation des médiateurs constitue un enjeu important, dans le contrôle de ce nouveau mode d’intervention ou marché que constitue la médiation. Elle représente un enjeu non seulement pour les médiateurs qui veulent en faire une profession à part entière, mais aussi pour d’autres acteurs, comme les professions juridiques ou du social, qui veulent annexer cette nouvelle fonction dans leur champ d’intervention. Ces enjeux expliquent en grande partie les rivalités de pouvoir entre les différents acteurs de la médiation pour en déterminer son contenu, sa durée et définir les modes de certification et d’accréditation des médiateurs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".