Martine Morisse et Louise Lafortune (dir.) (2014). L’écriture réflexive. Objet de recherche et de professionnalisation . Québec : Presses de l’Université du Québec, xx-146 p.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’attache à décrire des mécanismes sociaux éclairant un accès différencié à la formation continue pour des ouvriers. Une classification des actions de formation permet de mettre à distance les discours institutionnels empreints des logiques libérales portant sur la formation dans l’entreprise. La formation est d’abord envisagée de manière autonome, comme espace social ayant ses logiques propres, entraînant des conditions de possibilité d’accès socialement variées. L’analyse des modes de transmission des savoirs met en évidence l’incursion de la « forme scolaire » en entreprise. La formation continue est ensuite considérée comme objet hétéronome, indissociable des évolutions de l’organisation du travail, faisant apparaître d’inégales chances pour les ouvriers de faire face à ces mutations. Les analyses sont développées à partir de données issues d’une enquête de terrain dans une entreprise de l’industrie agroalimentaire.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.012 |
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".