Les différences qui font une différence : vers une nouvelle approche pour la valorisation de la diversité dans les organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests that interactive diversity initiatives have failed to meet expectation of increased inclusion in organizational context. This conceptual paper proposes to explore diversity initiatives by developing a constitutive approach to the implementation of a policy to promote diversity in the workplace. According to this approach, any organizational process, such as diversity initiatives, emerges in and through communication. From this point of view, it is therefore possible to analyze the principles, values and arguments mobilized and which guide the negotiation as well as the implementation of a diversity program. This paper argues that unpacking processes that govern diversity programs could lead to the development of more equitable policies and initiatives on equal opportunities and diversity. Les initiatives et programmes de valorisation de la diversite, de plus en plus presents au sein des organisations, ont connu un succes pour le moins mitige au cours des dernieres annees. L’objectif de cet article est de poursuivre la reflexion sur ce theme a la lumiere des etudes recentes propres au domaine de la communication organisationnelle. Cette reflexion vise a demontrer que la mise en evidence des elements et des processus communicationnels qui gouvernent les programmes de valorisation de la diversite pourrait permettre le developpement de politiques et d’initiatives plus adaptees en matiere d’egalite des chances et de diversite. Nous proposons l’exploration de ce phenomene par le developpement d’une approche dite communicationnellement « constitutive » de l’implantation d’une politique de valorisation de la diversite. Cette approche servira de base a notre reflexion, puisqu’une telle perspective met en lumiere les discours de la diversite qui sont constitutifs de tels programmes d’action.
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 | 0.042 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".