Bibliographic record
Abstract
Du fait de sa polysémie et de ses différents usages, la notion d’empowerment pose encore problème dans le champ épistémique du travail social. Le contenu de cet article vise à enrichir l’analyse critique de la notion en distinguant six perspectives théoriques se réclamant de l’empowerment de façon à souligner leur apport respectif à la compréhension du phénomène d’appropriation du pouvoir en travail social. C’est à partir d’une recherche documentaire que nous présentons une synthèse des six perspectives historiques d’empowerment : conscientisation, féminisme, habilitation, environnementalisme, capabilités et responsabilisation. Si ces perspectives ont le mérite d’identifier un certain nombre de repères cognitifs rendant possible l’appropriation du pouvoir des individus et/ou des collectifs, ceux-ci demeurent sous-développés sur le plan théorique ; le registre idéologique prenant le pas sur le travail de problématisation. Sont ainsi laissés dans l’ombre l’enjeu de la normativité autoritaire du régime d’autonomie-condition et la question du pouvoir que nous avons sur nos propres actes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".