Etude des interactions conseiller / bénéficiaire dans le bilan de compétences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research work of thesis focuses on the counselling practices currently at work in the system of skills assessment. Initially, we explore the theoretical models which underlie the counselling practices in the field of guidance and the researches in the precise field of skills assessment. We then carry out an analysis of the essential differences between these practices: the structuring of these differences - goals, theoretical referents and methods - allows us to build up a typology of the practices related to skills assessment. We finally propose to bring to the fore the links between the different types of practices and the speeches of recipients concerning their own skills assessment.Our research protocol consists of three types of data: 1.retranscribed interviews of 15 counsellors in skills assessment, evoking their own conduction of one of these skills assessments; 2.audio recordings of the last work session of 24 employees’ skills assessments; 3.retranscribed interviews of the 24 recipients having taken part in the present research, giving a point of view about their own assessment after their last work session.Our method of analysis of the qualitative data thus collected is founded on the following linguistic theories: “theories of enunciation” and theories of the verbal interactions. We carried out three readings of our results: •A lexical reading enables us to define a typology of the counselling practices in five groups (Analytic, Evaluative, Informative, Pedagogical and Strategic Expertise Practices). The lexical worlds analysed by “Alceste” inform us about the contents of “what is said” and “what is worked”, preferentially, but more especially on the underlying notions of the counselling.•A reading of the modalities of enunciation enables us to bring out the intersubjective communication at work in counselling relations. We find discrete linguistic elements, nonlexical but distinctive in the comprehension of the link between the speakers and their speeches, their relations to the world and to interlocutors. “How it is said” informs us indeed about the reciprocal attempts of influence between interlocutors but also about the way in which the speaker deals with his own speech (in an affirmative way or not, speaking on its behalf or making say under scientific cover…) and on the way in which he sees the future and the world (a system of affirmative beliefs organized by linguistic markers of certainty such as “obviously”, “without any doubt” vs a system of woolly norms leaving the place to the doubts, uncertainty and hazards).•A reading of the interrelationships at work in the real situations of assessment informs us about the respective positions of the interlocutors by the observation of quantitative and qualitative indicators (quantitative distribution of “discursive space”, management of the turns of speeches, sets of themes…) and on their discursive strategies by the analysis of the linguistic acts.Our results show that the practices of the counsellors are locatable in their speech and are located by the recipients. There is indeed a coherence between the modes of expression of the counsellors and those of the recipients. The viewpoint of the recipients on their skills assessment and the future are also related to the type of practice of their counsellor. Our research does not enable us to say if these modes of expression of the recipients on the future are durable and so some practise are more effective than others. On the other hand, it opens a heuristic way: a detailed exploration by means of the discursive analysis in situations of skills assessment and their effects, in the medium and long term, should bring important elements of structuring in a field which still misses reference marks useful for the practicians.
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 | 0.012 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".