Les rapports au travail des jeunes en situation de vulnérabilité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quel rapport les jeunes en situation de vulnerabilite entretiennent-ils avec le travail ? C’est a cette large question que cette etude franco-quebecoise entend apporter quelques elements de reponse. Les jeunes constituent une categorie heterogene et proteiforme particulierement exposee aux aleas du marche du travail. Au sein de cet ensemble composite, les jeunes connaissant des situations de vulnerabilite sont souvent confrontes a une precarite sociale plus forte encore et suscitent un interet constant des autorites publiques. Cette etude s’inscrit dans une double triangulation qui fait emerger trois piliers autour desquels est construit ce rapport. Le premier pilier qu’il importe de mieux identifier est celui des sequences ressenties de vulnerabilite et son revers, les moments ou les jeunes ont le sentiment d’etre en controle de leur parcours. En second lieu, et de maniere principale, c’est le rapport au travail entretenu par les jeunes sur la base de leurs experiences qu’il nous faudra mettre en lumiere. Enfin, et dans une troisieme partie de ce rapport, c’est le point de vue des agents de l’action publique sur leur intervention qui sera convoque. Chacun de ces piliers est eclaire a un triple niveau : celui des dynamiques societales, des experiences individuelles des jeunes et des operateurs de l’action publique en charge de les accompagner.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".