MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560377088 · doi:10.7202/038463ar

Le workfare et l’activation de la protection sociale, vingt ans après : beaucoup de bruit pour rien ? Contribution à un bilan qui reste à faire

2009· article· fr· W1560377088 on OpenAlex

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

VenueLien social et Politiques · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis plus de 10 ans, les réformes de l’activation de la protection sociale ont pris une grande ampleur dans tous les pays. Quand on en fait le bilan, on peut comprendre leurs traits communs ainsi que la grande diversité qui a persisté en Europe, et entre l’Europe et les États-Unis. Si les réformes ont eu des conséquences à la fois idéologiques et institutionnelles, si elles ont changé les stratégies politiques, l’activation de la protection sociale s’inscrit dans une logique historique. Partout, ces réformes ont été légitimées par des promesses en matière d’accès à l’emploi, d’élimination de la pauvreté et d’exclusion sociale. Mais ces promesses, on le sait maintenant, n’ont pas été tenues. Si les dépenses sociales ont été contenues, on ne connaît enfin que très mal les effets sur le vécu des personnes, qui sont très difficiles à comparer entre pays.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.340 · 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