Le rôle des émotions dans le processus de sensemaking : lâanalyse communicationnelle de récits dâexpériences de personnes travaillant\ndans une résidence pour personnes âgées
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au cours des dernières décennies, les chercheurs ont souligné l'importance\nd'étudier les émotions et le processus de construction de sens (sensemaking) de\nWeick (1995) dans des contextes organisationnels. Cependant, peu d'études ont\nexaminé les relations complexes entre ces deux dimensions de l’expérience\norganisationnelle. Pour comprendre davantage ce lien, cette étude explore\nl’interprétation du rôle des émotions dans le processus de sensemaking dans le\ncontexte d'un centre d’hébergement pour personnes âgées. Fondée sur l’analyse de\nrécits d’expériences de six employés, cette analyse narrative révèle les principales\ndifférences et similitudes dans la manière dont les émotions marquent le\nsensemaking de ces employés dans leurs interactions quotidiennes au travail. De\nplus, cette recherche montre que l'accent mis sur les émotions peut faire ressortir\ndes aspects organisationnels particuliers du sensemaking qui, autrement, restent\npris pour acquis (ou cachés).
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".