MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1558205244 · doi:10.7202/1064451ar

Peut-on parler d'un tournant néo-libéral en France ?

2008· article· fr· W1558205244 on OpenAlex
Johann Michel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSens public · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPublicsPhilosophyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au confluent de l'histoire des idées et de l'analyse des politiques publiques, cet article s'interroge sur la justification de l'hypothèse d'un tournant néo-libéral clairement daté qui aurait affecté l'orientation des politiques publiques en France depuis l'après-guerre. L'auteur préfère qualifier les changements qui ont marqué la gouvernementalité française de suites d'inflexions néo-libérales (1957-1958, 1976, 1983) – avec des mouvements de retour en direction du consensus socialo-keynésien d'après-guerre – qui s'opèrent selon des contextes à chaque fois particuliers. L'orientation progressive et discontinue, et non brutale et continue, de l'action publique vers le néo-libéralisme s'explique en raison de la persistance dans les structures mentales (des acteurs publics, des acteurs sociaux, de la société elle-même) d'un fort attachement au système de protection sociale mis en place après-guerre.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it