Les formateurs et formatrices en entreprise : impact de leur posture sur les formes de socialisation professionnelle des apprenti·e·s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En Suisse, l’apprentissage dual, qui alterne cours en école professionnelle et formation en entreprise, représente la filière de formation postobligatoire la plus empruntée par les jeunes. Nous discutons ici de son lien avéré avec le marché du travail, à partir de l’analyse des socialisations professionnelles qui s’y déroulent. Nous nous intéressons aux agents de socialisation centraux, les formateurs et formatrices en entreprise. Des analyses qualitatives (contenu thématique, typologie) permettent d’identifier différentes dimensions de la socialisation des apprenti·e·s. Elles seront ensuite articulées à des types distincts de personnes formatrices, construits sur la base de leur perception des apprentii·e·s et de leur rapport au travail. Cela mettra en évidence comment la manière d’endosser la fonction de formation influence l’une ou l’autre des dimensions de la socialisation professionnelle.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".