Vulnérabilité sociale et santé mentale : quand les doctorants sont mis à mal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article a pour objectif de faire un état des lieux de l’expérience particulière du doctorat par le biais de trois thématiques aux enjeux saillants. Tout d’abord, les éléments associés aux enjeux relationnels du doctorat et à un manque de cadrage clair de l’activité sont présentés. Les auteurs abordent ensuite la question du sexisme et de l’homophobie à l’université pouvant être vécus par les doctorants. Enfin, ils mettent en lumière la mauvaise santé mentale des doctorants, incluant les facteurs déterminants et les répercussions potentielles de cette situation. L’article, en guise de conclusion, propose quelques pistes à explorer, à développer et à mettre en place pour améliorer le vécu du doctorat et proposer une formation en recherche qui soit la plus inclusive et équitable possible, favorisant le bien-être et le développement des carrières des doctorants.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".