Les 35 heures en France : pourquoi sont-elles toujours en débat ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quarter of a century after their votes, the Aubry laws on the "35 hours" in France remain at the centre of lively debates and controversies. Ideological positions and theoretical arguments find their roots in the 40-hour workweek law of the Popular Front in 1936 and then the denunciation of the spirit of enjoyment by the Vichy regime. But if political discourses are polarised, the policy measures implemented by the right or the left when in power are much more ambiguous. Even if they have been set up according to a neo-classical approach, the Aubry laws nevertheless remain the most ambitious working time policy since 1945 in France. Not only do they entail a reduction in collective working hours, but also a rethinking of working time, accompanied by numerous innovations offering flexibility to companies and, more rarely, to employees. Their application in workplaces in both the private and public sectors is extremely heterogeneous. By their scale (except for teachers who do not benefit from them), the "35 hours" have had an impact on non-working time, reinforcing social and gender gradients. Despite the persistence of fierce controversies, the economic record is less marked, with moderate job creations/savings and probably limited impact on French competitiveness and public finances.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".