Communications au travail et conception de dispositifs de formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le « tournant praxéologique », issu notamment des sciences de la communication, constitue une voie qui s’est déjà révélée féconde pour examiner en quoi et comment le langage peut être un moyen d’agir avec et sur autrui. Cette conception du langage dans une perspective interactionniste a ainsi contribué à éclairer l’organisation du travail dans différents champs professionnels à travers les échanges entre membres d’un groupe. Ces travaux ont montré comment l’apprentissage d’un métier naît des interactions quotidiennes médiatisées par un contexte socioculturel donné. À travers ce dossier, nous examinons plus avant en quoi l’analyse des situations interactives au travail ou en formation initiale et continue constitue un levier de développement professionnel des opérateurs, débutants ou plus expérimentés, dans les professions supposant de travailler avec et sur autrui. Les contributions de ce dossier thématique abordent différents types de questionnements, notamment en quoi et comment l’analyse de situations de communication au travail peut constituer une médiation pour comprendre l’organisation de l’activité professionnelle dans les métiers adressés à autrui. Elles interrogent également les dispositifs de formation en eux-mêmes, s’intéressant aux rapports entre chercheurs et professionnels, à la possible interfécondation de leurs savoirs respectifs, ou encore aux traces verbales témoignant de leurs effets en ce qui a trait à l’analyse de pratique constructive (ou non) collectivement engagée. To date, the “praxeological turn” has proven fruitful in examining how language can be a means for acting with and over others. This interactionist perspective on language has thus contributed to clarify how members of a working group organize themselves through exchanges, and this in multiple professional fields. This corpus has shown it is through daily interactions mediated by a given sociocultural context that individual develop their professional skills. In this issue, we examine further this constitutive aspect of interactive situations at work, or in initial and continuing training, for the professionals (beginners or more experienced), assuming that working with and over others is fundamental to these professions. So doing, the contributions constituting this issue address questions as: how the analysis of communicational situations at work as a mediation contribute to deepen the understanding of the professional activity organization; how training devices themselves contribute to the possible inter-fertilization between professionals and scholars’ knowledge; or, some authors develop further on verbal traces and their effects for the analysis of constructive practices whether or not collectively engaged.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".