La formation pour prévenir la désinsertion professionnelle des travailleur·s·es handicapé·e·s ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article interroge la formation professionnelle à l’aune du risque de désinsertion professionnelle, soit, pour des travailleurs, celui de perdre leur emploi ou activité pour raison de santé ou de handicap. Il s’agira ici, d’une part, de mieux caractériser ce risque au travers du profil des salariés concernés, de leur environnement professionnel et conditions de travail ; d’autre part, d’interroger la perception et la place de la formation professionnelle afin de savoir si celle-ci est vue comme un moyen de sécuriser des parcours professionnels dits « à risque ». L’analyse repose sur le traitement des données du dispositif d’enquêtes sur les formations et itinéraires des salariés (DEFIS) du Céreq (2015 et 2019). Elle s’est également nourrie d’entretiens répétés auprès de travailleurs ayant suivi un module d’orientation vers l’emploi et obtenu une reconnaissance administrative de handicap.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".