Le travail gestionnaire comme psychopolitique au service de la transformation sociale du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur un type de travail trop peu étudié : le travail gestionnaire. À la suite de Braverman, nous considérons qu’il s’agit là d’un travail à part entière. Ses caractéristiques sont cependant différentes de celles du travail ouvrier. Si ce dernier relève de la biopolitique par le travail qu’il produit sur les corps, le travail gestionnaire relève d’une psychopolitique destinée à forger un nouvel individu défini par des habiletés, techniques, cognitives et surtout psychologiques. Assumant une position éducative, le journal Les Affaires publié au Québec à partir de 1928 entreprend, entre autres projets, de définir le travail gestionnaire et de produire ainsi un discours qui permet de légitimer la transformation capitaliste. This article focuses on a type of work that has been studied very little: managerial work. Following Braverman, we consider it to be work in its own right. Its characteristics, however, are different from those of labour work. If the latter is biopolitics by the work it produces on the body, managerial work is psychopolitics designed to forge a new individual defined by skills, technical and cognitive, and above all psychological. Assuming an educational position, the newspaper, Les Affaires, published in Quebec from 1928, undertook, among other projects, to define managerial work, thus producing a discourse making it possible to legitimize capitalist transformation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".