Le statut de l’intérimaire, une « innovation sociale » co-construite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
De nouvelles formes d’emploi apparaissent depuis les années 2000, sous l’impulsion créative des technologies, qui poussent individus et entreprises à développer des façons inédites d’exercer une activité professionnelle. Ces modalités de mise au travail posent de nombreux défis, brouillent les repères et obligent à réinventer des équilibres justes entre autonomie et sécurité, entre efficacité économique et protection sociale, entre individualisation et maintien d’un cadre collectif. Dans ce contexte, il peut être utile de revisiter l’histoire de l’intérim en France, pour évaluer le caractère innovant de cette co-construction, tant sur le plan économique que juridique et social au sens large, et comprendre à quels besoins et défis elle a su répondre. L’exemple français est particulièrement riche d’enseignement car il est considéré comme le plus abouti, particulièrement en matière de construction du statut social de l’intérimaire.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".