Autonomy regime in long term care arrangements : Instrumentation and territories
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The autonomy of people hampered by a disability, chronic illness, or functional loss involves individuals and the relatives or professionals who accompany them. It also concerns the institutional or organized players who debate, decide on, and implement support measures in this field. In France, as elsewhere in the world, changes in the relationship with autonomy through social policies are being driven by social factors such as population ageing, the transformation of family structure and of forms of employment, and political and historical factors that promote more or less individualized conceptions of autonomy (Börner, Bothfeld, Giraud, 2017). Changes are also taking place in specific practices of autonomy support. Since the mid-2000s, so-called “autonomy” policies in France have been aimed at people with disabilities and frail older people. In international debates, we speak of “long-term care (LTC) policies”. In France, and often abroad, these policies are still segmented according to the public, the nature of the services, and the functions. The notion of autonomy, in terms of LTC policies, is embodied in institutional and social arrangements. The Aurelia project aims to analyse autonomy regimes , which are defined as the organisational procedures for supporting autonomy among people with disabilities or frail older people. These emerge from social discourses, institutionalised norms, specific assistance measures, and the daily practices of carrying out support tasks. This project conducts a combined comparative analysis on the design of policy instruments (specialized debates, social discourses, and implementation procedures), the specific support practices for autonomy, and the different dimensions in which they are received by the concerned public and informal carers. This project will capture autonomy regimes at the territorial level in conjunction with national scales and individual situations. The Aurelia project develops three objectives: 1) analysis of the tensions between norms and practices of long-term care; 2) analysis of the tensions between national, territorial, and individual policies for regulating the provision of long-term care; and 3) a reading of the autonomy regimes through the analytical lens of instrumentation, as the instruments implement specific provisions and organise power relations in a given policy domain (capacities, financial resources, obligations, information, etc.). Specifically, the project focuses on the instruments for assessing autonomy loss, doctrines of rehabilitation, and tools that compensate for autonomy loss. In the case of those instruments, autonomy is simultaneously constructed by representations, scientific knowledge, and especially medical and professional knowledge. These instruments also give rise to the public’s acts of implementation and appropriation – or circumvention, whichever the case may be. The project analyses public discourses insofar as they contribute to defining the content of the notion of autonomy in long-term care policies, to forging policy instruments, and to structuring professional and lay knowledge corpuses that guide both the practices of implementing measures and informal acts of autonomy support that take place at home. Finally, the Aurelia project produces analyses of autonomy as a norm that is located at the intersection between individual expectations and differentiated social orders, which are driven by actors situated at various scales. The project is based on a pluralistic research methodology that comprises qualitative analyses of discourses, public policies (specifically instruments), interviews with actors involved in deciding on and implementing instruments as well as with informal actors, and recipients of the various measures and autonomy support practices. The quantitative analysis will capture the disparities between territories and characterise the autonomy regimes in specific contexts: equipment, policy implementation and take up, varieties in the modes of care, socio-economic indicators, and the configurations of actors and care practices at the beneficiary level. The Aurelia project is based on an international and multidisciplinary research consortium. In France, specialists in sociology, political science, geography, demography, law, public health, economics and medicine are organised into five teams: INED, LISE-CNAM CNRS, EHESP, EHESS, and IRES. The members of these different teams have already achieved successful scientific work and are experienced in comparative analysis. The Aurelia consortium's partner teams in Germany, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom are leaders in their fields. Furthermore, productive partnerships have already been tested among the consortium members.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,037 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».