L’intervention sociale : entre éducation populaire, <i>organizing</i> et approches intersectionnelles ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À l’initiative de certains segments professionnels, généralement militants, le champ du travail social est aujourd’hui en pleine réinvention. C’est sur la base de ce premier constat que la formation-action « Réinventer l’éducation populaire et le travail social dans les quartiers » est née en 2015. En son sein, des professionnels, des militants et des sociologues ont cherché à faire évoluer l’intervention sociale dans le sens d’une plus grande prise en compte des rapports sociaux inégalitaires qui structurent la société, dans l’idée de faire que l’empowerment devienne autre chose qu’un mot d’ordre néolibéral. Pour cela, ils ont puisé dans les traditions militantes de l’éducation populaire et de l’organizing, mais aussi dans les savoirs issus de la sociologie matérialiste. Cet article a pour objectif de revenir sur cette expérimentation, c’est à dire sur les considérations théoriques qui ont présidé à sa conception, sur sa mise en pratique ou encore sur ses débouchés.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".