L'évolution du financement de la protection sociale à l'aune des expériences britannique, française et danoise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé La comparaison de l’évolution du financement de la protection sociale au Royaume-Uni, au Danemark et en France permet de distinguer une première période pendant laquelle de simples ajustements sans remise en cause structurelle sont mis en œuvre. À partir du début des années quatre-vingtdix, des réformes fiscales importantes interviennent pour faire face à la crise économique. L’analyse des réformes intervenues souligne l’importance du path dependancy dans les choix opérés par les gouvernements (fiscalité écologique, création de cotisations sociales, instauration de la CSG…). Néanmoins, au-delà de ces différences, les défis similaires auxquels ils sont confrontés (croissance tendancielle des dépenses, ralentissement de l’évolution de la masse salariale) semblent avoir entraîné une convergence vers une diversification de l’assiette du financement de la protection sociale sans que soient nécessairement concomitamment réformés le mode de régulation du système de protection sociale ou les conditions d’ouverture des droits.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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".