MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1784808620 · doi:10.7202/1030264ar

La réforme du système de santé bulgare au prisme de ses temporalités : dynamiques et conflictualités d’un changement social complexe

2015· article· fr· W1784808620 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alis Sopadzhiyan

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles perspectives en sciences sociales · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Observatory on Health Systems and PoliciesTemple UniversityNew York Academy of Medicine
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article proposé ici explore la réforme du système de santé bulgare de la fin des années 1990 sous l’angle de ses temporalités. L’auteure situe son analyse par rapport aux travaux néo-institutionnalistes récents sur la structuration progressive du changement et aux écrits de la sociologie historique. Elle montre ainsi le temps double de cette réforme qui, bien que suggérant l’immédiateté du fait de son caractère radical, s’inscrit avant tout dans une perspective temporelle longue. Outre son caractère double, le changement ainsi introduit se voit accéléré comme conséquence des relations complexes entre le temps et l’espace et de l’importation d’idées néo-managériales lors de la mise en oeuvre de la réforme. L’analyse des effets de ces phénomènes temporels sur la perception du changement des principaux acteurs composant l’espace politique de la santé révèle, quant à elle, l’omniprésence de la référence au passé communiste qui reste un temps dominant fort de l’histoire bulgare, alimentant les dynamiques conflictuelles inhérentes au système.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles perspectives en sciences socialesSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207