Social work (between dismenberment and membership, an imagination which makes link ?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La thèse va tenter de montrer comment, par l'exploration de l'imaginaire des travailleurs sociaux, la théorie de l'éclatement développée dans la plupart des publications spécialisées sur la question du travail social doit être amendée, voire abandonnée au profit d'une vision plus large, plus complexe de la réalité de l'univers des travailleurs sociaux. Cette recherche s'est construite sur le modèle épistémologique de la sociologie compréhensive et de l'herméneutique sociale. On tentera de cerner demandes et commandes qui leur sont adressées, on décrira les quatre métiers "pivots", leurs formes d'intervention (projet...) pour y voir conjugué ascétisme et hédonisme (place particulière de l'éthique). On s'intéressera ensuite, à leur système de valeurs (don, résistance...). On entrera enfin dans leur univers imaginaire, par les rituels, l'univers symbolique (régime diurne/nocturne), les territoires, pour aboutir aux mythes (Métis, Hermès...). On conclura sur la tribalité.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".