Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nombreuses sont les recherches qui, dans le domaine du travail, recourent à la comparaison internationale. Elles sont un apport indéniable à la connaissance des formes que peuvent prendre les activités de travail, en montrant notamment la relativité de régularités qui peuvent sembler « naturelles » quand on se limite au cadre d’un pays. L’auteur expose ces apports mais aussi les limites et les difficultés de la méthode, en s’efforçant de faire apparaître l’enjeu qu’elle représente pour les ambitions explicatives de la sociologie. Allant de l’entreprise à l’analyse sociétale, tout en soulignant l’importance des institutions intermédiaires (comme les branches d’activité) pour la compréhension des différences et des similitudes entre les nations, il élargit la problématique par des exemples empruntés à des recherches récentes. Enfin, remettant en question le statut privilégié accordé à la « nation » par les comparaisons internationales, il essaie de poser les principes de base d’une perspective qui dépasserait les limites des comparaisons classiques.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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".