Professions et carrières artistiques. Un horizon souhaitable des transformations du travail?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les professions artistiques ont souvent été considérées comme porteuses d’un horizon pour les autres mondes du travail. Les valeurs d’expressivité sur lesquelles elles se fondent, centrées sur l’accomplissement de soi, ont en effet été présentées par certains auteurs comme un idéal du travail libre et épanouissant. Cette contribution questionne à la fois les limites de cette vision idéalisée et la pertinence d’une transposition des conditions d’activité des artistes à celles d’autres professions. Ce prisme sous-tend une analyse plus large portant sur les valeurs contemporaines du travail, la transformation du rapport au travail, et les conditions institutionnelles nécessaires pour que le travail expressif ne soit pas vécu sous la forme d’une précarité, mais permette au contraire de conjuguer sens et contenu du travail créateur sous une forme soutenable pour les individus et leurs milieux professionnels.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".