MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006674037 · doi:10.7202/1067213ar

Les enjeux d’une professionnalisation axée sur le « spirituel »

2020· article· fr· W3006674037 on OpenAlexaff
Jacques Cherblanc, Marie-Anne Risdon

Bibliographic record

VenuePhronesis · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le service d’animation spirituelle et d’engagement communautaire existe depuis 2001. Il remplace l’animation pastorale scolaire et a pour but de favoriser le développement spirituel et l’engagement communautaire de chaque élève, quelle que soit son appartenance ou non à une confession religieuse. Cet article présente l’historique ayant conduit à l’élaboration de ce service ainsi que les interrogations professionnelles actuelles de ses intervenants. Ces interrogations sont basées sur une prise de conscience de la grande diversité des personnes qui offrent ce service, diversité dans leur formation, mais aussi dans leur compréhension du sens des termes définissant leur travail. Oeuvrant aujourd’hui à une professionnalisation qu’ils jugent essentielle à leur survie même, ils utilisent des stratégies professionnelles qui apparaissent toutefois peu conformes à leur réalité et à leur pouvoir. Cet article souhaite montrer la pertinence de changer de perspective soit de ne plus concevoir leur profession à partir des paradigmes fonctionnalistes ou conflictualistes, ni de l’ancrer dans le volet « engagement communautaire », mais plutôt d’adopter un point de vue interactionniste, et que celui-ci soit axé autour du volet « spirituel ».

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.022
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhronesisSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207