Figures du vieillir et formes de déprise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Face a l’allongement de la longevite et a l’entree massive ces prochaines annees des baby-boomers dans le grand âge, il est important d’ameliorer les savoirs sur les dynamiques de vieillissement. C’est l’ambition de cet ouvrage, porte par des travaux internationaux reunissant sociologues et professionnels de soins. Il developpe et enrichit la reflexion autour des experiences du vieillir a partir du concept de deprise. La deprise designe un travail d’amenagement du parcours de vie qui s’appuie sur une serie de tentatives de substitution d’activites ou de relations. Elle suppose une tension entre le sentiment des limites, corporelles et cognitives, et la volonte d’assurer une continuite identitaire mais aussi un desir de s’assurer une presence differente au monde. A contrecourant d’approches reductionnistes, âgistes et sexistes, qui ont construit une image negative du vieillissement, les auteurs, canadiens, francais, allemands, suisses, rendent compte de ces « arts de faire » qui questionnent l’inscription des aines dans le temps et l’espace, le rapport a soi et aux autres mais aussi les disparites sociales et genrees. Ce tour d’horizon montre bien la necessite de considerer les specificites socioculturelles et politiques dans l’analyse des differentes figures du vieillir. Ouvrage publie avec le soutien de la Fondation MUTAC, sous l'egide de la Fondation de l'Avenir.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".