Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article compare les trajectoires des psychologues et des physiothérapeutes québécoises depuis 1950. D’une part, il montre en quoi l’apparition de nouvelles thérapeutes « paramédicales » sur le marché des soins a contribué à faire évoluer les usages cliniques. D’autre part, il analyse la manière dont ces professionnelles ont su jouer de la dualité qui se dessine après 1960 entre marchés public et privé de la santé. Cette histoire se décline en trois temps. De 1950 à 1975, ces professionnelles investissent les hôpitaux à l’appel de médecins spécialistes, dont elles contestent cependant bien vite l’autorité. De 1975 à 1990, leurs aspirations trouvent sur le marché privé des soins un terreau fertile où elles développent des approches alternatives qui pollinisent ensuite le réseau public. Enfin, après 1990, ce sont des ressources issues plutôt du secteur public qui migrent pour consolider la pratique en privé, témoignant de la solidarité entre ces marchés qui composent en fait les deux faces d’une seule et même économie politique de la santé.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".