Le coaching des cadres et le psychologue double bind ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le « coaching » propose des accompagnements, surtout aux cadres, pour développer la productivité et la performance. Les lacunes sont nombreuses : discussion des postulats, approche scientifique, variabilité des coachs, des dynamiques psychiques, des situations de travail réel... Mais les besoins des cadres sont majeurs, notamment dans la fonction publique française. De plus, le coaching interroge les pratiques des psychologues et des intervenants en santé au travail. Cette communication approfondit ces constats et discute ces pratiques. Les interactions entre l’analyse qualitative de terrain et les apports théoriques permettent une approche exploratoire pluridisciplinaire. La variété des dispositifs en santé au travail et d’accompagnement des cadres nécessite d’être sécurisée scientifiquement. Les garanties doivent être construites ou réaffirmées, comme dans le Code de déontologie des psychologues.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".