La perspective des collectifs au travail face aux enjeux de reconnaissance en travail social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plusieurs défis se présentent aux travailleurs.euses sociaux.ales au Québec dans leur pratique au sein des services publics. Les normes en place, influencées par le courant néolibéral, imposent une vision normative des problèmes sociaux générant des tensions éthiques aux professionnels.les en place. De plus, les multiples transformations survenues au fil des années dans les organisations entraînent divers enjeux au travail : pénurie de main-d’œuvre, surcharge de travail, critères restrictifs d’accès aux services, modes de gestion inspirés de la Nouvelle gestion publique, reddition de comptes, etc. De ces enjeux découlent une perte de sens au travail et un manque de reconnaissance de la profession. Comment retrouver un sens au travail dans un tel contexte ? La perspective des collectifs au travail apparaît comme étant une voie intéressante à explorer.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".