Pouvoir médical et interventions législatives au Québec, 2001-2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionnellement déduit de la reconnaissance sociale accordée aux médecins et de la nature scientifique de leur savoir, le pouvoir médical semble désormais contesté sur la base de divers facteurs, notamment les connaissances accrues des patients, mais peut-être spécialement la volonté des responsables politiques de rationaliser les pratiques dans le domaine de la santé, en particulier dans la perspective de réduction des coûts. Au-delà de la perception que des médecins ont eux-mêmes de leur pouvoir et de son évolution, nous examinons 28 lois qui, adoptées par l’Assemblée nationale du Québec entre 2001 et 2008, touchent à différents degrés la profession et la pratique médicales. Il ressort de cet exercice que le pouvoir médical est objet à la fois d’une érosion relative et d’une consolidation, selon qu’on porte attention au contrôle des conditions d’exercice de la pratique ou au statut hégémonique de la profession au sein du système de 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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".