Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Les travaux à partir des notions « d’instrument d’action publique » ou de « technologies de gouvernement » ont connu ces dernières années une forte recrudescence dans l’espace francophone. Ils s’appuient sur une tradition anglo-saxonne de plus de quarante années et aujourd’hui très diversifiée, mais ils l’ont enrichi de différents apports allant des théories du pouvoir à la sociologie des sciences. L’article présente ainsi un panorama de la littérature en mettent en valeur la diversité des perspectives qui coexistent et leur évolutions. L’approche par les instruments est un bon traceur de changement de l’action publique, mais aussi des régimes et des styles politiques. Elle incite aussi à saisir l’action publique dans sa matérialité. Comprendre l’instrumentation est une façon de saisir les transformations de l’État en envisageant ses pratiques, et les recompositions qu’elles connaissent, en particulier dans la tension permanente entre contrainte et incitation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".