Multipolarité de la surveillance et gestion des médicaments au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La gestion des médicaments au Québec est exposée à quatre types de surveillance : la surveillance de type bureaucratique (Weber), la surveillance de type bio-politique (Foucault), la surveillance individuelle de type réflexif (Giddens) et la surveillance de type sous-politique (Beck et Castells). Plus précisément, des agents tels que la Régie de l’assurance-maladie, le ministère de la Santé et des services sociaux, les ordres ou associations de professionnels, les professionnels de la santé et les consommateurs utilisent différents instruments pour exercer l’un ou l’autre de ces types de surveillance, que ce soit pour surveiller leurs conduites ou celles des autres. Par cette étude, je fais la démonstration que la surveillance n’est pas qu’un mécanisme de domination que maîtrisent des appareils administratifs de l’État. Elle constitue aussi un mécanisme d’autonomisation et de résistance pour les administrés et leurs représentants afin de limiter ou d’orienter le pouvoir de l’État ou de l’étendre.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".