Le travail social, une discipline académique? Une contribution au débat à partir de la littérature francophone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se veut une contribution au débat sur le travail social comme discipline scientifique, sur la base d’un aperçu critique des débats francophones actuels. À partir des cas de la France, du Québec et de la Suisse romande, il montre qu’il est nécessaire de situer ces débats dans leurs contextes historiques et institutionnels respectifs, mais aussi qu’il est aussi possible d’identifier des logiques transversales au-delà des enjeux locaux. Il se termine sur des ouvertures invitant à développer une réflexion commune, au-delà des antagonismes et des particularités locales (sans pour autant les nier). Mots-clés : Travail social, discipline scientifique, interdisciplinarité, justice sociale, Suisse. Is social work an academic discipline? A contribution to the debate based on French-language literature This article is intended as a contribution to the debate on social work as a scientific discipline, based on a critical overview of current French-speaking debates. Drawing on the cases of France, Quebec, and French-speaking Switzerland, it shows that it is necessary to situate these debates in their respective historical and institutional contexts, but also that it is possible to identify transversal logics beyond local issues. It concludes with an invitation to develop a common reflection, beyond antagonisms and local particularities (without denying them). Keywords: Social work, scientific discipline, interdisciplinarity, social justice, Switzerland. - - - This article was first published on 02.04.2025 as OnlineFirst.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 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".