Une analyse comparative entre le Canada, le Québec et la France : l’importance des rapports sociaux et politiques eu égard aux déterminants et aux inégalités de la santé*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À travers une étude critique des discours et de la rhétorique des politiques de santé publique quant aux rôles des déterminants sociaux et politiques dans l’explication de l’état de santé et des inégalités de santé des populations, nous tentons de rendre intelligible l’occultation de ces dimensions sociale et politique à l’aide d’une analyse comparative entre le Canada, le Québec et la France, ces lieux étant choisis comme des exemples « paradigmatiques ». Le Canada et le Québec sont reconnus mondialement comme les chefs de file d’une approche globale de la santé, tandis que la France adopte encore une perspective biomédicale et comportementale de la santé des populations. En revanche, lorsqu’il s’agit de considérer les inégalités de santé, dont l’existence et les fondements sociaux et politiques ne sont plus à démontrer, ces trois régions du monde se rejoignent par leur myopie.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".