Comment être « l’amie » des familles populaires : la relation de care chez les assistantes sociales de l’entre-deux-guerres, entre vocation et formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objet de cet article est de se demander comment les assistantes sociales de l’entre-deux-guerres envisagent les enjeux de la relation de care qui les lie aux usagers des services sociaux. Les assistantes ont en effet un rôle double : prendre soin des familles populaires mais aussi les surveiller et les contrôler. Comment concilient-elles ces impératifs paradoxaux en cherchant la « bonne distance » avec leur public ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous nous tournons vers les archives de la formation professionnelle. En effet, les écoles de service social contribuent à définir les attentes de la relation de care et à établir le cadre dans lequel prennent place ces interactions. Nous nous penchons dans un premier temps sur le discours de la vocation chez les postulantes au métier d’assistante, puis sur la manière dont la formation professionnelle régule ces aspirations. Nous concluons sur la force de la notion de care, qui permet de penser l’imbrication entre rapports de domination et bienveillance envers autrui.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".