Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’aspiration à la reconnaissance de leur individualité ressort de témoignages de personnes âgées reçus lors d’une recherche récente. Elle n’est guère satisfaite par des pratiques institutionnelles de plus en plus standardisées liées aux exigences de gestion institutionnelle et renforcée par celles de la Nouvelle gestion publique (NGP). L’éthique professionnelle du travail social se vit dès lors dans la tension entre la soumission aux règles et la délibération, celle-ci exigeant la prise en compte à la fois de la complexité des situations et des pratiques, et, d’une part, de l’aspiration des personnes auxquelles les services sont dispensés, et d’autre part, d’une reconnaissance d’elles-mêmes dans leur singularité et l’unicité de chaque expérience de vieillir. Le travail social, pratique prudentielle (Champy, 2009, 2011, 2012) requérant l’exercice de la sagesse pratique dans la délibération, appelle, pour l’intervention auprès des personnes âgées notamment, une éthique de la reconnaissance dans ses volets personnel ou interpersonnel et social, voire proprement politique.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".