Portées et limites du travail émotionnel pour interroger le travail et ses (dé)régulations - Volume 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Après un premier numéro consacré à la portée du concept de travail émotionnel et à sa polysémie, ce second numéro spécial suggère des voies pour « mieux cibler, analyser et comprendre le travail émotionnel et ses conséquences » (Soares, 2022 p.78). Prenant acte de l’omniprésence du travail émotionnel dans les organisations et de sa centralité pour la santé et la qualité de vie au travail, ce dossier propose en complément un aperçu d’approches pour saisir les émotions et leur expression non seulement dans leur caractère personnel, intime et fugace, mais encore collectif, manifeste et processuel, au cœur de l’activité de travail. Toutes les disciplines qui abordent le travail se trouvent conduites à adapter leurs méthodes, leurs techniques et leurs outils, pour appréhender les dynamiques émotionnelles et leurs effets.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".