Deux lois de santé publique : une au Québec, l'autre en France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il ne s’agit pas, a proprement parler d’une exercice de comparaison. Comparer deux textes legislatifs n’a de sens que s’il est possible de les inscrire dans un contexte plus large. Or les systemes de sante quebecois et francais, meme s’ils possedent des caracteristiques communes (contexte economique de pays developpes, existence d’un systeme de protection sociale, systeme de soins sophistique...) possedent egalement des differences importantes, deja analysees dans differents articles ou ouvrages. Au premier rang desquelles figure le niveau politique de responsabilite. L’actualite recente aussi bien au Quebec qu’en France peut illustrer cette difference. Ainsi au Quebec, bien que la sante soit sauf exception de responsabilite provinciale, le debat recent sur le niveau de financement par le gouvernement canadien et ses consequences pour le systeme de sante meme a l’interieur d’une entente dite «asymetrique » demontre bien l’intrication entre paliers provincial et federal en la matiere. En France, il est interessant de noter que le projet de traite constitutionnel europeen consacre entierement l’autonomie de chaque Etat membre, puisqu’il est dit dans l’article III-278, alinea 7 que « l’action de l’Union est menee dans le respect des responsabilites des Etats membres en ce qui concerne la definition de leur politique de sante, ainsi que de l’organisation et la fourniture de services de sante et de soins medicaux. ».
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 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) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".